Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Dream-like Nature of Reality

Albert Hong
I'd like to talk about the dream-like nature of reality. No appearance ever amounts to anything and no appearance references anything other than itself as the full dynamic exertion of becoming.

On one level this is disheartening and on another its tremendous freedom.
Unlike · · November 26, 2013 at 10:27pm near Rochester Hills, MI, United States

    You, John Tan, Viorica Doina Neacsu, Laya Jakubowicz and 6 others like this.
    Piotr Ludwiński If appearance cannot reference other then how could it reference itself?
    November 26, 2013 at 11:00pm · Like
    Albert Hong Becoming without being. Appearance-emptiness.

    All fancy words.
    November 26, 2013 at 11:02pm · Like
    Tan Jui Horng Still hurts like mad when I stub my toe against the bedpost though.
    November 26, 2013 at 11:10pm · Like · 4
    Albert Hong Yeah but it never lasts.
    November 26, 2013 at 11:11pm · Like · 5
    Stephen Metcalf I am on the tremendous freedom side. And yes about the toe!
    November 26, 2013 at 11:45pm · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Inspired by the quote you shared earlier?

    "My form appeared like a dream to sentient beings who are like a dream. I taught them dreamlike teaching to attain dreamlike enlightenment."
    - Lord Buddha | Supreme Jewel Mound
    November 27, 2013 at 3:01am · Unlike · 14
    Kyle Dixon Albert took John Ahn and I on a wild car ride in a dream the other night.
    November 27, 2013 at 3:02am · Like · 1
    Soh Nice.. looking at a reflected image on a mirror an the sceneries outside the mirror we may think one is unreal one is real... one is reflection one is truly there... but when we investigate further we find both to be completely equivalent... selfreferencing/referenceless reflections, dreams, echoes, mirages
    November 27, 2013 at 8:50am · Like · 5
    Jackson Peterson I am not following "not referencing". Here it's seen that each appearance is referencing the inter-dependent totality including the supports that are not appearing, like gravity or sub-conscious conditioning. Like Blake's : "Seeing an entire universe in a grain of sand" or Indra's Net where everything is reflected in everything.
    November 27, 2013 at 11:33am · Like
    Soh Harry Rice:
    "The Indra's Net metaphor is often misinterpreted to suggest that each jewel in the net reflects all of the other jewels in the net. Nice, but not right. Each jewel is ONLY the reflection of all of the other jewels. It has no inherent essence. It is empty."
    November 27, 2013 at 11:53am · Like · 11
    Soh Not referencing means no core
    November 27, 2013 at 11:55am · Like · 5
    John Tan Yes nice. Concisely and aptly expressed!
    November 27, 2013 at 11:57am · Unlike · 1
    Arthur Deller Nice re-iteration of Indra's Net. That left me stupid, for a moment.
    November 27, 2013 at 12:03pm · Edited · Unlike · 3
    Jackson Peterson I don't think the notion of a holographic universe is quite the same. Appearances aren't mere reflections rather they are an inter-dependent flashing forth of all points of time.
    November 27, 2013 at 12:04pm · Like
    Soh That is true but conventionally. Ultimately there are no points of time. There is only conventional points of time. Just like there is ultimately no (inherently/changelessly/independently existing) being but a conventionally designated being (such as jackson, buddha, etc)
    November 29, 2013 at 11:20am · Like · 5
    Soh But you are right appearances arent reflections of something else they are total exertions. They are only reflections in the sense that they are empty appearances completely equivalent to reflections mirages and dreams, I.e. empty yet appearing, appearing yet empty.
    November 29, 2013 at 11:25am · Like · 2
    Soh We think objects exist inherently out there but we do not think objects exist inherently in the reflections of a mirror. But in actuality everything we experience is mere reflections (not of something - there is no something apart from those reflections)
    November 29, 2013 at 11:27am · Like · 3
    Rakesh Sandhu But don't we live in conventional reality not ultimate reality?I know what you mean but we don't really live in ultimate though.
    November 29, 2013 at 11:57am · Like
    Soh First of all there is no ultimate reality or conventional reality. Reality implies something truly existing but no true existence can ever be established. There is only conventional truths and ultimate truths. Conventional truths are based on designations and labels that we commonly attribute to various appearances and functions.

    When there is the assembly of various "parts" like wheels window engine etc etc and those aggregates work interdependently to manifest a function we call driving, then a valid conventional designation for such an assemblage is "a car". But in reality there is no car in or apart from any of those parts like the engine wheels and window. There is no carness of car. There is no core of a car. It is not the case that the engine is the engine "of a car". That statement implies there is a core of a car to which the parts belong to. But no such core can be found or established as reality. Conventionally speaking the engine the wheels IS the car. Or more accurately speaking, based on this conglomeration and interdependent function of driving etc there is the conventional designation of "car".

    But no car can be found to exist in and of itself apart from the convention whether in or apart from the conglomerate. This emptiness of the conventionally designated car is its ultimate truth. And this truth is always already so. There has never been a moment in our lives that we have experienced a nonempty thing. Everything is always already empty.

    But we have simply not realized it and therefore we are being spellbound by the strong karmic propensities that impute inherent existence. This karmic tendency is appearing as our solid reality in the sense that we feel the world and self to be solid and real just like in a dream we experience the dream to be real even though it is merely a dream. It has a creative power of making a fiction into our seeming reality. To realize the truth of twofold emptiness is the first important step to free ourselves from the magical spell or knot of perception or karmic tendencies.
    November 29, 2013 at 12:14pm · Edited · Like · 4
    Arthur Deller "Everything is always already empty". Including Emptiness! That's the part I can't grok, yet.
    November 29, 2013 at 12:19pm · Edited · Like
    Rakesh Sandhu I understand what you mean wei.But you used the word conventionally and ultimately.there is no self but there truly isn't no self aswell.So reality is in between these 2 from my understanding.self and no self seems extreme
    November 29, 2013 at 12:26pm · Like
    Soh It is the middle way free from the extremes of existence and nonexistence. See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../eternalism... something I wrote last year that is quite relevant
    Awakening to Reality: Eternalism, Nihilism and the Middle Way
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    I have a question about this - even though 'water' is a label, the underlying pa...See More
    November 29, 2013 at 12:29pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Rakesh Sandhu Read it and yes makes sense to me
    November 29, 2013 at 12:33pm · Unlike · 1
    Piotr Ludwiński " Including Emptiness! That's the part I can't grok, yet." it's simple; due to obsession with objectification we cling to "things are empty" just like we clung to "flower is red". Therefore to say "emptiness is empty" is already to say too much.
    November 29, 2013 at 11:34pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Piotr Ludwiński "If there something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty; as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?" Nagarjuna
    November 29, 2013 at 11:34pm · Like · 3
    Albert Hong Imaginary solution for imaginary problems.
    November 29, 2013 at 11:36pm · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Soh, you say "to free ourselves" and refer continuously to an entity that either "doesn't realize" or "is spell bound". To speak like this is to say on one hand there is no "self" but on the other hand you describe what this "no-self" must do or what "it does". How can an already "empty of self" self "free itself"? Rather when the whirlpool ceases, its clear "no one was "set free" from the whirlpool". No?
    November 30, 2013 at 5:29am · Like
    Kyle Dixon (Jackson can't see my posts because he has me blocked, but in response to his post, and for the sake of the discussion)...

    There is freedom from delusion.

    The compelling conviction of selfhood appears from confusion [and is confusion], the apparent functioning of the self occurs from within the confines of confusion, and when confusion is recognized for what it is, the conviction of selfhood is seen to have always been an unfounded and artificial extrapolation. A useful convention, but ultimately invalid.

    The 'freedom' is possible because there is no inherently existent (or non-existent) self, if there were, then recognition of the emptiness of self would be impossible.

    It is irrelevant that upon realizing the emptiness of self it's utterly apparent that nothing was bound, nor set free, that fact does not negate liberation because that epiphany is precisely realization (and that knowledge/realization taken to its full extent is itself liberation); the freedom from (and emptiness of) samsara and nirvana. It becomes evident that both bondage and liberation are equally unfounded, and the freedom from bondage and liberation is itself liberation.

    As Dudjom Lingpa says:
    "The decisive experience of certainty that samsara and nirvana are supreme emptiness is itself unsurpassable awakened mind."
    November 30, 2013 at 6:23am · Edited · Unlike · 3
    Soh Kyle Dixon
    (Jackson can't see my posts because he has me blocked, but in response to his post, and for the sake of the discussion)...

    There is freedom from delusion.

    The compelling conviction of selfhood appears from confusion [and is confusion], the apparent functioning of the self occurs from within the confines of confusion, and when confusion is recognized for what it is, the conviction of selfhood is seen to have always been an unfounded and artificial extrapolation. A useful convention, but ultimately invalid.

    The 'freedom' is possible because there is no inherently existent (or non-existent) self, if there were, then recognition of the emptiness of self would be impossible.

    It is irrelevant that upon realizing the emptiness of self it's utterly apparent that nothing was bound, nor set free, that fact does not negate liberation because that epiphany is precisely realization (and that knowledge/realization taken to its full extent is itself liberation); the freedom from (and emptiness of) samsara and nirvana. It becomes evident that both bondage and liberation are equally unfounded, and the freedom from bondage and liberation is itself liberation.

    As Dudjom Lingpa says:
    "The decisive experience of certainty that samsara and nirvana are supreme emptiness is itself unsurpassable awakened mind."
    November 30, 2013 at 7:10am · Edited · Like
    John Ahn "It is irrelevant that upon realizing the emptiness of self it's utterly apparent that nothing was bound, nor set free, that fact does not negate liberation because that epiphany is precisely realization (and that knowledge/realization taken to its full extent is itself liberation); the freedom from (and emptiness of) samsara and nirvana. It becomes evident that both bondage and liberation are equally unfounded, and the freedom from bondage and liberation is itself liberation."-> This is really great. It's not a recognition of something, it's a recognition of an error. Or as Albert said, imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.
    November 30, 2013 at 7:38am · Unlike · 3
    Jackson Peterson Its goofy "double talk". When the whirlpool ceases "no one" has been "freed" in the process, nor was there ever a "realizer" that required realization. When the dream ceases, it's not that a "someone" just woke up.. That "someone" only existed in the dream.
    November 30, 2013 at 7:47am · Like
    Soh Nobody is freed but there is a release from strong fixation and delusion. There is an actual experience of freedom even without an experiencer that is unmistakeable, like putting down a ton of load off your shoulders after carrying it for a long time. Nirvana is but no enterer.
    November 30, 2013 at 7:59am · Like · 5
    Soh To deny the magical spell of karmic tendencies and delusion is to be self deluded within delusion. To realize delusion for what it is is awakening.
    November 30, 2013 at 8:02am · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon Like Nāgārjuna says:
    "Samsāra and nirvāna; neither of these two exist. Instead, nirvāna is the thorough knowledge of samsāra."
    November 30, 2013 at 8:06am · Unlike · 6
    Jackson Peterson I think you are right on track Soh, there is a release of the energetic contraction. Its a wonderful transformational surge of pure bliss and wisdom. But rather than those being an experience that someone experiences, rather it is the absence of that "someone" that reveals these qualities of impersonal Nirvana. So it's like waves aren't happening "to" the ocean but rather are the ocean. Yet the ocean didn't realize "waves" either.
    November 30, 2013 at 6:43pm · Unlike · 1
    Jackson Peterson In relationship to Kyle's quote, Longchenpa makes the point more clear:

    Since all phenomena are timelessly free, nothing need be done to free them anew through realization. [9ob] If they were not timelessly free, realization could not free them, and if they are already free there is no need to make them so. Therefore, do not treat their essence, which has nothing to do with whether or not there is realization, as a case of bondage
    versus freedom.

    Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded. One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it.

    There is equalness,
    because nothing is improved by realization or worsened by its absence, and so there is no need for any adventitious realization. And because there has never existed anything to realize-for the ultimate nature of phenomena is beyond ordinary consciousness-to speak of "realization" on even the relative level is nothing but deluded. What can be
    shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated.

    So there is the expression "it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization."

    Longchenpa ~ A TREASURE TROVE OF SCRIPTURAL TRANSMISSION
    November 30, 2013 at 7:19pm · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon This 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization' notion has been addressed before by Lopon Malcolm:

    Jax quoting Longchenpa:
    "Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded..."

    Malcolm wrote:
    Correct, the basis is always intriniscally liberated.

    Jax quoting Longchenpa:
    "..One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed Awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it..."

    Malcolm wrote:
    Correct, since the basis is always intriniscally liberated.

    Jax quoting Longchenpa:
    "...What can be shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated. So there is the expression 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization'..."

    Malcolm wrote:
    This is where you deviate in your understanding. The Tibetan text does not use the term 'need'. It says quite simply:

    "Here, since it is demonstrated there is nothing to be realized, nothing introduced, beyond view and meditation, it is called 'beyond realization and non-realization'".

    But the context of the sentence above is provided in the previous sentence:
    "Because an object to realize is not established since that ultimate dharmatā is beyond mind, a so called 'realization' in the relative is described to be solely a deluded concept."

    This passage is not saying that introduction is unnecessary. It is saying that from the ultimate point of view, there is nothing to introduce. But from an ultimate point of view not only are there no sentient beings, there are also no buddhas. This point of view is not especitally profound. Even the Perfection of Wisdom sutras makes this point. So what?

    Longchenpa is not saying that introduction is unnecessary. The context of this statement in general, in terms of the commentary as whole, comes after his description of the two types of transference, those of best capacity and those of medium capacity. Following this, he moves into a description of why Ati is considered unreasonable by those in lower vehicles since Ati is beyond cause and result.

    But nevertheless, this does not mean that he considers introduction unnecessary. Quite the opposite in fact, given the shear number of introduction texts he wrote.

    Incidentally, on his deathbed, Longchenpa never said 'After I die, rely on chos dbyings mdzod'. What he said actually was 'After I die, rely on the Yangthig Yidbzhin Norbu' a.k.a. the Lama Yangthig.

    N

    --------

    Jax wrote:
    Isn't Longchenpa pointing to the fact that Awareness (rigpa) cannot be attained by training, practice or any efforts of any kind? He says that because Awareness is fully present right now. Its not hidden. He even says in the same text that no "direct introduction" or realization is necessary. Your cognitive presence that is experiencing, is the experience, of the five senses, as well as your thoughts and emotions...is this timelessly present Knowingness, that Norbu call pure "noticing". It's not more present after practice or study or transmission. Its the clear unchanging Awareness that appears as everything. Is it really so hard to notice that the Awareness he is speaking of is your present open and clear awareness just as it is?

    Malcolm wrote:
    No actually, what Longchenpa is talking about vidyā as dharmakāya.

    Because vidyā is essenceless, because a substantial active agent is contradicted in the real state, and because it has always been naturally formed, there are no stages to train on, paths to traverse, mandala to create, empowerment to receive, path to meditate, commitments to protect, activities to accomplish and so on. There is no need create again what has already formed naturally. If it were necessary, conventionally designating natural formation as unconditioned would be invalid. Consequently, the dharmakāya would be perishable because it would be conditioned, and because it would have been made by causes and conditions.

    The purpose of this statement is to point out that in reality there are no agent and actions so therefore these following things do not exist in vidyā, the dharmakāya. It does not mean that there is nothing to do. Most people are unaware that lhun grub means "not made by anyone". It means that vidyā cannot be fabricated, only recognized.

    But Longchenpa does not say that introduction is unnecessary. On the contrary, chapter nine explicitly teachs introduction:

    "From the two systems in which naked vidyā is suddenly recognized, this is the introduction which does not depend on critical points. Since that stark, uninterrupted and uniform awareness (which does not move outwardly, grasp inwardly, rest in middle, is not fabricated with the mind and is without conceptual movement) exists at all times, by introducing it's naked arising within the state of the blessing at the time when the master and student are momentarily in the same state, starkness is seen nakedly. That alone can generate confidence in dharmakāya. The critical point is to sustain that state without meditation and without distraction."

    Then of course there is the system of introduction that depends on six critical points.

    However your contention "He even says in the same text that no 'direct introduction' or realization is necessary." is proven to be false.

    N
    December 1, 2013 at 3:36am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Jackson is adopting the point of view of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] and asserting that our own experience coincides with that condition. However the individual is not equivalent to primordial wisdom until buddhahood occurs. This is why introduction, practice and familiarization are required on the part of the individual. Primordial wisdom itself is originally pure and undefiled, but this doesn't mean primordial wisdom isn't obscured by defilements. The path of Dzogchen is dispelling those obscuring defilements so that eventually primordial wisdom remains unobscured, and that is buddhahood.

    From the point of view of primordial wisdom there is no difference between the individual and wisdom, but from the point of view of the individual there is a difference and that difference remains until the individual has integrated fully with primordial wisdom.

    Lopon Tenzin Namdak explains the importance of differentiating Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa:

    "Lopon comments that while the practitioner is not distracted but is continuously in the natural state it is as if he or she is in space - whatever is done, no traces are left behind. As we said, whether you paint black or white on space nothing remains. The base that keeps the traces is lost; it is empty.
    Of course this only applies to a practitioner who has achieved continuous contemplation. For other people who still grasp at their karmic traces this does not apply. When the Lopon first came to Swayambhu in Nepal in 1944 he met some Tibetans with whom he travelled for some days. One man was a former monk who had a wife and children and was carrying a huge load of luggage on his back. When he was a monk he had met Dega Rinpoche, a famous Dzogchenpa, in the mountains and consequentially he gave up his robes because he felt he was too tied up with the vinaya vows. But Lopon pointed out that he was equally tied up with his children. The man replied that in Dzogchen it is said that it does not matter what you do - so he was free to do anything and that was okay. But this is a complete misunderstanding of Dzogchen. The teachings only apply when you are totally absorbed in the natural state. It depends on your practice and only you can judge.
    So it is a paradox that beginners must take actions even though the ultimate Dzogchen view has no action. The beginner must take a very strong action - a decision - otherwise there will be doubt and hesitancy. All the preparatory methods help us realize the natural state. But once it is seen and understood then the situation is different. The experience Dzogchenpa would not need to do preparatory practices at all."
    December 1, 2013 at 3:59am · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh Kyle are you able to read jax post? Because John Ahn told me he is able to read them after he became admin. Not sure why you can't
    December 1, 2013 at 8:10am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon I can read his posts. Just can't reply to threads he's authored himself.
    December 1, 2013 at 9:07am · Like · 1
    Soh Ah I see
    December 1, 2013 at 9:27am · Like

No comments:

Post a Comment