Mr. J.C.
July 10 at 1:40pm · Bozeman, MT, United States
I use two techniques for dealing with painful clinging - non-arising clear seeing and "reality pixels".
With non-arising clear seeing, there is a recognition that there is clinging or making substantial some mental fixation that is causing pain. Then the mind will attempt to objectify the entire field of experience, noticing particularly any solidity or subject. As that solidity is felt it is remembered that everything is non-arising so the solidity is no longer allowed to be established.
With "reality pixels", the attention takes in the entire field of experience as if it were millions of micro-experiences occurring in parallel. The whole field is scintillating with no connection between pixels nor any vantage that they are observed from. This method works especially well if all experiences are remembered to be complete in themselves - there is nothing that is being missed and no subject to be eradicated.
I hope someone finds this useful.
UnlikeUnlike ·
You, John Tan, Joel Agee, Wha Tsin Aname and 8 others like this.
Apollo Lee Adama Trekchöd and Thogal?
July 10 at 4:33pm · Like
Wha Tsin Aname Very interesting.
Could you please elaborate on the pixelization "process" itself? No doubt that 'pixel-like' is the true subatomic nature of all "things", but the human eye of course is not equipped to detect it.
Also, are all mental movements seen as another pixel as well, or does the un-substantiating of mental fixation preclude the pixelization of mental factors?
Thanks!
July 11 at 2:18am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Apollo Lee Adama - I don't know anything about Trekchöd and Thogal
July 11 at 3:50am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Interesting. What is your "background"? Zen?
July 11 at 3:52am · Like
Mr. J.C. Wha Tsin Aname - The human eye can actually detect it very easily. Go into a dark room and stare at a shadow on the wall. If you pay attention, it is quickly apparent that it is not a solid shadow, but rather a scintillating field of changingness. As you get used to that you can see it even in brightly lit rooms, especially when you look at "solid" colored things.
And yes, mental movements are seen as scintillating simultaneous experiences as well.
July 11 at 3:52am · Like · 3
Mr. J.C. Apollo Lee Adama - Mostly noting style vipassana with some non-dual'ish "be aware of awareness itself" type stuff. Pretty much Kenneth Folk's 3 speed transmission.
July 11 at 3:54am · Like · 1
Apollo Lee Adama Well done, then. You rediscovered the two core Dzogchen non-meditations
July 11 at 3:56am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Which is which?
July 11 at 3:57am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama The first reminds of Trekchöd, the second of Thogal.
July 11 at 3:59am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Let's keep the Tregcho and thogal discussion to a minimum folks... This isn't Jax's den of iniquity.
July 11 at 4:00am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Awesome, my ego is super stoked at this connection ;-P
July 11 at 4:00am · Like · 1
Apollo Lee Adama Damn, it's not working, ey ;D
July 11 at 6:13am · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle, what?
Are we not allowed to discuss the two techniques that Justin is sharing? Or are we not allowed to call them certain names? Is trekchod and thodgal off-limits? What does Jackson's personal interests have to do with any of that?
Can you have another look at the context in which your warning appeared? It seems to me a hypersensitive reaction. Why this policing?
July 11 at 2:56pm · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Discuss Justin's techniques all you want.
But man ngag teachings have never been discussed in depth in this group apart from vaguely touching on their principles (in the rare occurrence that topic came up).
And yes this is not a platform for discussing those teachings. They are not the type of thing you talk freely about in a public forum.
Jackson was mentioned because he has groups on facebook dedicated to those practices, which is a travesty in my not so humble opinion.
My reaction is no more hypersensitive than your own knee-jerk reaction which prompted your reply just now. I could also ask you, why the policing... but police all you like.
Either way, upadesavarga sadhanas have never been discussed here, so I'm not sure why it is a surprise now.
July 11 at 3:09pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4
Play Video
Sound of da police
KRS-one sound of da police
July 11 at 3:32pm · Like · Remove Preview
Apollo Lee Adama Kyle, are you an admin here? If not, your personal opinion is none of my business. If you are, it's of course up to you to set the rules here, but it would be fair to update the group's description to make clear that certain topics are no-go. I agree that your opinion is "not so humble". LOL
July 11 at 4:13pm · Edited · Like
Wha Tsin Aname I took your comment as mere facetiousness.
The context is humor, brought to you in part by Jax.
I'm sure these discussions, when isolated to threads whos participants are capable, provide no real threat.
Most peeps who just glance 'upadesavarga'...turn and run. Not for the uninitiated.
July 11 at 4:18pm · Edited · Like · 1
Soh Kyle is an admin.
July 11 at 4:34pm · Like · 2
Apollo Lee Adama In that case, it should IMO be made clear in the group's description that some Dharma topics are not allowed. Very interesting to learn that Peterson is such a hot issue here, in any case.
July 11 at 4:45pm · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon If you've had transmission for those practices it should go without saying that they are not topics of open conversation in the presence of any variety of individuals who may not even know what Atiyoga is. They are not to be broadcasted, are not fodder for speculative bouts of analysis or casual, comparative, conceptual explorations. They are not games to be played with or recreational pastimes to kiss and tell of.
Judging by the surprised tone in your response you most likely do not understand that it should go without saying that those practices are profoundly secret... and therefore I won't expect you to understand why I object. I cannot fault you for your poverty in that respect. You are merely working with what you have been given, which is a view that apparently lacks the fundamentals associated with the practices in question. Meaning the fact that you are surprised that discussing these sadhanas is not on the menu, says something about the nature of the transmissions you were given, if you received any at all.
You do not need to fear a lion, but if you are going to work closely with an animal of that nature you should know that animal and respect that animal. Otherwise that encounter will undoubtably be short lived. If you have had transmission for these practices then you are already in the cage with the lion, or are in the lion's den itself. Except you appear to be exhibiting the type of conduct one would display in the presence of a house cat or a kitten. The upadesavarga is not the cat's meow my friend, it is the lion's roar... take heed.
July 11 at 5:50pm · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Sounds like the typical religious hocus-pocus to me. Many people - like Keith Dowman, for example - are now clearing the Dharma from the accreted cultural and religious crud. Makes perfect sense to me.
July 11 at 5:54pm · Like · 1
Apollo Lee Adama I am not surprised, by the way. I know that people like Dowman and Jackson are under fire from the traditionalists.
July 11 at 5:55pm · Like
Kyle Dixon On the contrary, I have received man ngag sde instruction from Keith Dowman, and he was very careful and mindful of respecting that animal. To the point that when he realized there were a few individuals in the group who had not even received the rig pa'i rtsal dbang, he immediately became uneasy and said "I cannot be doing this, there are guardians over these teachings" and ended the teaching early. Good for him.
So don't tell me Keith Dowman is "clearing the dharma from the accreted cultural and religious crud", that is patently false.
July 11 at 6:01pm · Like
Kyle Dixon Dowman isn't under fire, and Jackson teaches Neo-Advaita in Dzogchen drag... trust me the "traditionalists" could care less what that man does in his little bubble. Seeds don't sprout in infertile soil.
July 11 at 6:05pm · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama From Dowman's introduction to his book Spaciousness: "In it we are assured that over and above all the yogas and dhyanas of Hindustan, all the ritual and magic of Tibet and all the commercialized quasi-religious new-age therapies of the West there exists a simple, timeless manner of being, of easy access, requiring no onerous technique or renunciate lifestyle, that can give us a constant modicum of satisfaction in this vale of laughter and tears between birth and dying." That is also my conviction. Feel free to disagree, Kyle. I'll leave it at that.
July 11 at 6:09pm · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon That is merely saying that your nature is free of anything associated with the mind, such as cultural constructs and so on. This type of rhetoric is quite normal when these teachings are discussing one's primordial nature.
However it is not negating cultural constructs in their conventional application. Which is what you are unfortunately misinterpreting it as doing.
July 11 at 6:14pm · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. I've seen this all before in the martial arts world. The techniques came from the east with a certain cultural context that was lost as it moved to the west. Many techniques are kept secret because no one can understand them without the correct instruction and attitude.
And, I must admit, the vast majority of practitioners do indeed lack the mindset to apply these secret techniques, because they require vulnerability, lightness, and timing as opposed to strength and athleticism.
So, in this way, the masters were right.
However, one development has blown all of this out of the water - the adaptation of Japanese jiu jitsu by the Brazilians. This adapted system is a cultural shift that throws away all taboos and hierarchy in favor of pragmatism. If you can tap out black belts over and over again with your technique, then you are probably worthy of a black belt.
July 12 at 1:59am · Like · 3
Mr. J.C. Now, why does this matter with respect to secret teachings? Because the massive amount of experimentation that goes on in the unhierarchical system of Brazilian jiu-jitsu allows the adepts to rediscover those hidden teachings and use them incredibly effectively. It is the wisdom of the crowds sub summing the wisdom of the master. The proof that this approach works is that every UFC fight you see involves some amount of Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
July 12 at 2:03am · Like
Mr. J.C. Ive seen this transition in my life time and I have no doubt that it is coming to dharma.
July 12 at 2:04am · Like · 3
Apollo Lee Adama Amazon is full of texts that were highly secret a couple of decades ago, and IMO that is a Good Thing. Imagine science adopting an attitude "No, we won't teach you evolution, that's a secret practice. Stay with Lamarckism". LOL
July 12 at 2:06am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. As I said the vast majority of practitioners lack the mind set to use these secret techniques, but out of the woodwork emerges some people who can. Here are some examples - the common thing to look for is how effortless it is for the victor.
It is not just that they have great technique but they are controlling their opponents mind - like a magician, altering the inevitable losers perception so that they always move into the victors trap.
http://youtu.be/UUyFTCTFW7E
Play Video
Professor Sauer rolling with one of his brown belts
Rolling after class with one of his brown belts.
July 12 at 2:42am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Mr. J.C. One should understand mind control as a very dangerous thing and should only be taught to those who have proven to be virtuous. This is a perfectly logical position.
However what happens in practice is that this mind control, to be applied, requires an egoless stance to be functional and only maybe 1/20 of people have the capability to pull it off.
July 12 at 2:21am · Like
Zijazo Smith Meh. IMHO, if people are insightful enough to discover these kinds of techniques on their own via simply "knowing themselves" and various principles of reality (I actually discovered these exact techniques myself over the past week or so, along with the ability to "hallucinate freely" / control my own trance states... but no more needs to be said about that for now), then hopefully there is some community (the sangha) that is actually responsible enough to help practitioners along in such endeavors; or would one rather we undertake these things with absolutely no supervision? Now, I have my own guru and all but sometimes it's more helpful to discuss these matters with other Dharma friends-- isn't it? (And alleviating, no less?)
If we wanted, there could be a closed group dedicated to certain innermost secret practices so that the naive don't go annihilating their own nervous systems (which I understand, Kyle, is or has to be at least part of your concern)... but since some of us simply don't have access to centers with enough practitioners for some to be advanced enough to relate with about these techniques, simply by dint of geography, I think tossing out the opportunity for well-moderated discussion is the actual travesty. What I&I sight as the real "travesty" of Jax's groups is that he kind of clings the formless and makes things excessively rhetorical without giving enough guidance about the psychological and psychic nature of those practices. So it's very possible that people won't get the tools and instructions they need to actually perform certain mental feats PROPERLY. And that is not something we have to (or should) take as an example.
In any case, Dzogchen is the birthright of "sentient beings." Not saying that everyone is prepared to take up real in that way-- I'm sure something like 90% of practitioners (Americans especially) aren't. However, if some of us safely end up in those heights (having supervision of some sort) and are earnest in wishing to clarify our now immensely heightened awareness, so then to establish ourselves more or less permanently in rigpa, I see no problem.
July 12 at 2:26am · Like
Mr. J.C. Here's a practice that will fuck you up - pay close attention to the *previous* moment's experience.
It will totally screw up your body's energy, potentially to the point where you have kriyas that you can't stop for days. I did it and I wouldn't recommend it.
Is there some insight to be gained from it? Maybe.
There, I just explained something that may be a bad idea, but I shared my experience in a way that reduces harm.
Why share it in the first place? Because perhaps someone will pipe up and say "actually, I've done that practice a lot And here's what I've learned about it."
July 12 at 2:31am · Like
Mr. J.C. There was a period on KFD where a few people were experimenting with Tummo practice and I thought it was done in a very pragmatic way - everyone was sharing notes on how it was affecting them. A couple of people noticed it was making them more aggressive and backed off. One of the practitioners ended going through a depersonalization phase that he concluded as unhealthy and ended up going on anti-psychotics to correct the problem. There is an enormous amount of knowledge contained in those discussions.
July 12 at 2:35am · Like · 2
Apollo Lee Adama Very interesting. Can't say I agree with all this secrecy (IMO this leads to abuse and obscures the identification of what works and what does not) but thanks for sharing your views.
July 12 at 2:40am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama I doubt Tummo can bring about anything that was not already latently there. Many a "spiritual seeker" is deluded (believing in the paranormal, previous lives and so on) and turns to meditation to fix psychological problems.
July 12 at 2:44am · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Wim Hof (NL) teaches Tummo large scale as a physical practice. Works fine.
July 12 at 2:47am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Your attitude regarding all of this is quite venomous Apollo, but to each their own. Can't fault you for playing your role within the spectrum of possibilities.
July 12 at 2:52am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon It's ok Justin i don't mind you saying that, you can leave that comment up if you like.
And all in all you're right. I suppose I see the same type of attitude in Apollo that Jax exhibits. But you're right I could be more civil and constructive in my criticism.
July 12 at 3:02am · Like
Zijazo Smith Tummo is just a means, Apollo, and inner composure is essential before engaging in anything that literally changes your own physiology. The idea that this should all be available at the gas station in booklets or some shit is basically capitalist and hugely irresponsible... sure, much of this is available on the Internet and in books but giving it all away indiscriminately-- what good does that do anybody? Really it only creates more problems. I'm not saying you endorse this view but your view kinda suggests it as a maybe. Also... if you're not up on the past lives thing and so forth, you really have no right to be negotiating the rules and regulations of the vibe... no disrespect; just sayin'.
(Also-- the irony-- a unfriendable guy with an alias and photos of masks on his page saying secrecy "leads to abuse" while he notes secrecy's "obscuring" effect... hmm...)
July 12 at 3:12am · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama I agree that Tummo is a means. My point was that Hof teaches Tummo "as is" (as a physical practice) without great harm. That indicates that the "danger" stories around it are greatly exaggerated. I don't quite follow the "you have no right" part, though. I live in Europe, and we can pretty much discuss any topic freely here.
July 12 at 3:14am · Like
Kyle Dixon "So the teachings are kept secret not because they are ignoble. Rather, they are kept secret to prevent others from reinforcing negative karma and to avoid impairing the dharma's greatness: there is no fault in maintaining secrecy.
The actual way to maintain secrecy , applies to the three kinds of people discussed earlier - ordinary people, those who are small-minded and those who divulge secrets. Do not disclose the terms, texts, key points, or even partial discussion of the tenets of these teachings...
Even if people who have heard rumours of them ask you, I would advise you to maintain secrecy and reply, 'I'm not sure', or 'Not having practised them, I have no idea.'"
-- Longchenpa
July 12 at 3:17am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. I freely teach techniques that can be used to kill people. This one is called the triangle choke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwN-E7LO3bM
Play Video
Gracie Insider October 2007 - Triangle Choke
http://www.GracieAcademy.com/ Rener, Ryron, and Reylan Gracie, head instructors ... See More
July 12 at 3:18am · Like · Remove Preview
Zijazo Smith Lol I'm a martial artist too, man. What I'm saying is that you don't give a child a loaded assault rifle. Right? Save that for someone who demonstrates the capacity-- preferably an adult, and preferably not drunk or on meth.
July 12 at 3:19am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Okay, lets look at that analogy. Maybe the best way to analyze the danger of "child with loaded assault rifle" vs "deadly triangle choke" is to look at the probability of harm.
July 12 at 3:20am · Like
Mr. J.C. I have no scientific way to analyze this, but I would guess that the probability of harm of a given meditation technique is less than "deadly triangle choke" and far less than "loaded assault rifle".
July 12 at 3:21am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Does harm happen with these techniques? Yes. It has, and it is absolutely tragic - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Man-24-killed-cousin-14...
Is it enough to keep me from teaching, not by a long shot because the collective benefit of openly teaching these techniques is so high.
Man, 24, 'killed by his cousin, 14, from a chokehold they did while watching Wrestlemania'
www.dailymail.co.uk
Stephan Arceneaux III, 24, pictured, died after his 14-year-old cousin held him ... See More
July 12 at 3:23am · Like · Remove Preview
Zijazo Smith I would openly teach Dzogchen in combination with other arts (i.e. Qigong and Aikido) if I were in fact qualified. I actually agree with you. What sucks is feeling responsible for what someone does to themselves with such sensitive information if'n things go awry... and I don't know if that's something I should get rid of either, inasmuch it's born from a real concern for people. Maybe you have a different take tho?
July 12 at 3:26am · Edited · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Here is another way to pose this. What do you think is potentially more harmful - meditation practice X or psychedelics? Because if its easier to get your hands on a psychedelic substance than this secret teaching then thats what people will find and use.
July 12 at 3:26am · Like
Mr. J.C. I'm not qualified to teach Dzogchen so I don't I am qualified to discuss practices that I do and the subjective results I observe. I am qualified to listen to others describe the practices they do and the subjective results they observe. I am qualified to make up my own mind about whether or not I should try a given practice based on others experience and with the support of an experienced community that can guide me through any difficulty I may experience.
July 12 at 3:29am · Like · 1
Zijazo Smith Well that's my exact point! When you're experienced enough (laugh?), it can be just like psychedelics.
July 12 at 3:30am · Like
Zijazo Smith Irie. That's basically what I stated in my first reply to this post.
July 12 at 3:31am · Like
Mr. J.C. So I'm honestly curious about that. What dosage are we talking about? If I do basic belly breathing my carpet starts breathing and undulating too - like a low dose of a psychedelic. The difference is that the probability of me begin locked in a hell dimension for 5 eternities is pretty low.
July 12 at 3:32am · Edited · Like · 1
Brian Zey If Kenneth Folk Incorporated ever finds out he's actually teaching Dzogchen he'll triple his rates. "Enlightenment for sale!!!"
July 12 at 3:44am · Like
Mr. J.C. Brian Zey - All of Kenneth's main ideas are freely available.
July 12 at 3:47am · Like
Zijazo Smith This is the point at which I ask Kyle if he's comfortable with us discussing this specific subject openly... I'm not averse to messaging you privately in any event. For one thing I don't wanna flip the switch on anyone who doesn't appreciate the nature of voidness and have them end up all anxious and frightened as to whether or not they exist (though that could actually prove healthy for one lol); and for two I don't want someone to misunderstand the nature of what we're discussing (and have to explain so much "extra," but I guess that's just laziness)... for reasons similar to why freely showcasing magical accomplishments / siddhis is frowned upon-- it misleads people into thinking that having those experiences is the goal when they haven't even cultivated a loving heart or stabilized their practice of certain foundational meditations.
July 12 at 3:47am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Which specific subject? There are others in this group who I'm sure have transmission and samaya commitments with these types of teachings. Respecting them is another reason why these practices shouldn't be discussed openly.
July 12 at 3:52am · Like
Zijazo Smith Best to just refrain, then.
July 12 at 3:54am · Like
Kyle Dixon In general it is okay to discuss these teachings (or one's own practice) with one's teacher, mentor, or (sparingly with) other sangha members who have received the same transmission.
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said that these teachings are not the type of thing you just discuss openly... he said for instance, you wouldn't walk into a bar and begin discussing these practices with strangers. Even if you were talking to a fellow practitioner it wouldn't be wise to talk about it where your conversation could be overheard.
And it isn't because it is some sort of special secret 'club' which wants to keep others out, but out of respect for the teaching. You receive transmission from you teacher, and you respect those teachings and want to maintain the integrity of your teacher's and your own samaya.
July 12 at 3:59am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. The tragedy of this attitude is that the rest of us aren't getting any wiser about the dangers. No one is on here saying openly - I did practice X and it caused me problem Y because of Z. This is perpetuating ignorance and inhibiting the ability of people to recognize problems and assist people who are going through them.
July 12 at 4:01am · Like · 4
Mr. J.C. Abstinence and ignorance are so last millennium.
July 12 at 4:02am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon I mean, there's always going to be those who scoff at this type of thing, and that cannot be avoided. Anytime you have something like this you're going to have the full spectrum of possibilities. Apollo and Jackson are examples of those who have an issue (for whatever reason) with the traditional presentation of the teachings and want to strip them of those views and tenets. I personally do not see the point of that, for if you are going to abandon a certain cultural narrative you are undoubtably going to end up picking up another. The point isn't to fixate on the conventional principles which surround the teaching, but to use them as a support. And the teachings these practices are associated with have clearly worked, the lineages are unbroken, and the integrity of the teachings is preserved... so any reason one could come up with for abandoning that at this point is unwarranted in my opinion. You think you'd want to apply the practice in the way the great adepts of the past had, which clearly works. But who knows.
One should be able to relate to the context in which these practices are found in an effective manner. Where they aren't grasped at too tightly, as they are understood to be provisional and conventional guidelines.... and where they aren't rejected altogether, for then you miss out on the intention of those principles as laid out by the wisdom-holders who accomplished and provided them.
The structures have existed for centuries, and are complete in themselves. Throwing them away means you are giving up that support, and one is then out to sea without a paddle... a new and effective conventional structure is not going to suddenly manifest out of nowhere.
There's a certain degree of reckless pride and ego in rejecting the conventional principles and tenets associated with these practices. The audacity that one thinks they can simply show up and reinvent the process. It is very strange. It sort of assumes that the buddhas, bodhisattvas and vidyadharas of the past were involved in superstition and other pointless practices. Which is essentially considering those individuals to be fools on some level, archaic or primitive... this type of attitude is very common in modern circles and is grossly inaccurate and pompous.
One should be humble enough to know that you don't know better. You're simply some guy who has come upon these teachings, which are primordial, self-perfected expressions of wisdom. It frankly blows my mind that people think so highly of themselves that they can take these practices, strip them of the context they are found in, and somehow be more successful, like they are God's gift to the dharma. Such logic shows great immaturity in my opinion.
July 12 at 4:24am · Like · 3
Mr. J.C. This is all true, and ...
July 12 at 4:40am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Oh, it's the same old tune with all organised religions...taboo here, forbidden there, endless ritual yonder - all in a sauce of superstition. The Dharma has always evolved, regardless of religious hierarchies. Now it's blending with the scientific, Western mindset and it looks like both will come out for the better. Nothing but respect for the Tibetan masters who kept the Dharma alive! Less so for the Western Would-Be's donning funny robes, opposing necessary innovation, transparency and growth.
July 12 at 6:34am · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Anyway, it was interesting to get to know this community. It's way too ad hominem to my taste, so say thank you and leave. Ciao!
July 12 at 6:40am · Like
Kyle Dixon The dharma is definitely not blending with the western scientific mindset. How foolish to think the limited paradigms of scientific thought could improve the dharma.
And as for your rejection of what you consider to be 'superstition' that is comedy being that you evoke materialist physicalist science in the next sentence.
July 12 at 6:52am · Like
Kyle Dixon Apologies for the ad hom rhetoric Apollo, but it is quite troubling to see someone who is interested in these teachings desecrate them in multiple ways. Especially in the name of so-called "necessary innovation, transparency and growth"... there is no innovation, transparency or growth in what you are advocating for.
This type of view, which is called nihilism according to Dzogchen, is a byproduct of failure to understand how one's nature relates to conventional phenomena, processes, customs, paths and appearances in general. Knowledge of your nature does not contradict any of those things, and those things do not contradict knowledge of your nature.
When you read expositions from Dzogchen which are deprecating cause and effect paths, ritual, etc., they are making those statements because they are speaking from the ultimate perspective, the highest wisdom, which requires nothing... that nature is Dzogchen. The individual, the practitioner, is not Dzogchen. The individual works with their knowledge of Dzogchen and supports are required for that practice.
This will not make sense for you, coming from your encounters with Jax, who advocates for a nihilistic neo-advaita type view. But this is how Dzogchen works, and how the system which surrounds that nature functions effectively. For primordial wisdom there is no basis, path or result, however for the practitioner there is. If this isn't understood then then mind simply grasps at a weak semblance of its understanding regarding one's nature, and if that error isn't corrected, then the entire possibility of liberation is compromised.
"Some say: 'Cause and effect, compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'
These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."
- Longchenpa | rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso
July 12 at 7:24am · Like · 3
Lindsay Funk Kyle, do you think Dzogchen is special in that the teachings are potentially more harmful than than the other expressions of dharma which are freely available? Would there be harm in a movement within Dzogchen to talk about and correct mistaken views instead of limiting them to those fortunate enough to be with a teacher? I think Greg's a great example of laying out full-strength teachings, and then being there to help guide misunderstandings. Doesn't open source dharma give the bodhisattva exponential power?
July 12 at 7:59am · Like · 6
Soh In Chinese Buddhism we call Vajrayana ?? which means the secret sect, the esoteric sect. Vajrayana would not be vajrayana without its defining secrecy. Chnn spent quite a long time looking not so happy and telling us in Singapore retreat how he received an email from his western student and his girlfriend anf they screwed up their energy and went psychotic from practicing tummo from books and now want him to solve their problem. Since its energy related no western medicine can solve it but through yantra yoga diet etc it may improve. point was never experiment based on books even if one has received initiation into that practice and that one shld receive intimate instructions and guidance. I think the danger with Vajrayana has partly or much to do with energy practices. Theravada and classic Mahayana dont often deal with these so it is safer to practice on ones own in a way.
July 12 at 11:22am · Edited · Like · 2
Soh Personally I also would prefer dharma to be as open as possible but I think Vajrayana and energy practices could be an exception simply because of the dangers of unguided practice. Otherwise I like openness in the spirit of what Buddha said: Monks, there are these three things which are practiced in secret, not openly. What are they?
The ways of womenfolk are secret, not open. Brahmins practice their chants in secret, not openly. Those of perverse views [that's philosophically rather than sexually perverse views, I assume] hold their views secretly, not openly. These are the three things…
Monks, there are these three things which shine forth for all to see, which are not hidden. Which three?
The disc of the moon shines for all to see; it is not hidden. The disc of the sun does likewise. The Dhamma-Discipline [dhamma-vinaya] of a Tathagata [Buddha] shines for all to see; it is not hidden. These are the three things.
July 12 at 11:37am · Edited · Like · 3
Lindsay Funk Soh, I get your point, and it totally makes sense, but...
They WERE his students, presumably following his prescribed practices. It would be nice if we could all have a lama that could hold our hand all the time, but who does?
I get that Vajrayana practices emphasize energy more, so problems could be amplified, but any good practice will likely invoke energies. I can't say how valuable it's been for me to see the open discussion of these things on places like the DhO.
I have to wonder if part of the secrecy in Vajrayana was political. I've heard that in times past dissent wasn't the safest option in Tibet.
July 12 at 11:40am · Like · 1
Soh I believe the secrecy of Vajrayana predated Tibet but is very much intrinsic to Tantric traditions even back in India. I believe the same secrecy is practiced in Shingon which is the Japanese version of Vajrayana
July 12 at 12:09pm · Like · 2
Mr. J.C. Mahasi noting can really screw up your energy too. I don't think there is any getting around energetic side effects with effective practices.
July 12 at 2:51pm · Unlike · 3
Mr. J.C. I had a plane ride where my kryas were so bad that I told the woman next to me that I had Tourette's Syndrome and the movement was a side effect of the medication. I put on my headphones to try to look like I was moving to some music.
July 12 at 2:53pm · Unlike · 4
Soh LOL
July 12 at 3:16pm · Like · 1
Zijazo Smith Why tempt others by revealing exactly what fucked you up though? Almost seems like you take pride in it, in your resilience maybe. But the folly was real, no?
July 12 at 3:23pm · Edited · Like
Priscilla Francis people sometimes share what did not work for them so that others that come upon it can tread with caution.
July 12 at 3:34pm · Like · 1
Ej Alex Yeah, you can also get into the nature of mind through Advaita practice. There will also be energetic changes. Maybe you will have problems with falling asleep. So what? There are many ways into getting on the top of the mountain and if some paths think they are better/faster/more exlusive.. whatever. I´ll choose another way.
July 13 at 12:52am · Like
Soh I do not agree that all roads lead up to the same mountaintop. Different roads lead to different realizations. If the nature of mind is mere awareness or ground of being in Buddhism it would be no different from Advaita. However that is not the definitive nature of mind in Buddhism. I am replying from a phone so I will keep this short. Kyle Dixon can elaborate more as he also speaks from deep experiential insight. Meanwhile I would like to refer this article on the different realizations: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.hk/.../thusnesss-six... interestingly Thusness had warned a number of people since a decade ago that the intense attachment to Awareness/Presence after self realization will cause insomnia. This problem resolves itself after anatta realization.
Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
I understand very little of what Thusness has said. The path that Thusness descr... See More
July 13 at 1:24am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Ej Alex I agree. But like you Soh, you didn´t need the so "ultimate" Dzogchen to arrive at the point where you are now.
July 13 at 1:42am · Like · 1
David Vardy In the Taoist tradition, meditation is highly energetic and potentially dangerous. Add a touch of volition to the mix and you have a time bomb waiting to explode. Learning those techniques from books is very possible which makes them that much more dangerous. An example is Mantak Chia, He opened the flood gate with his teachings. And it's not that they're wrong. Quite the contrary, he knows his stuff from a technical vantage, but he permits people to teach his work who are wholly unqualified. No doubt he's in it for the money. He has no concern for individuals who have had physical and psychic problems arise from doing his practice incorrectly or correctly in some cases. The point being practices which develop Chi/Kundalini are the ones which should probably be kept secret. The snake is out of the bag though and it's better that problems people experience be voiced rather than hushed. As far as Dzogchen goes, it's so refined and far from grosser energetic practices which have the potential of being practiced volitionally that I doubt there is much danger in hearing the Absolute position. After all, it doesn't even include the practitioner.....
July 13 at 2:43am · Like
Mr. J.C. David - I had my first opening spontaneously when I was 17 and had absolutely no information, context, or support for what I was going through. I spent the next 3 years confused and depressed until I fully suppressed the experience through various distractions. When I had my next spontaneous opening 15 years later reading Eckart Tolle, I was immediately launched into kundalini phenomenon and it was again incredibly difficult to find any information about what I was going through.
So thanks to all you guys who did a good job keeping things secret.
I think nowadays, usage of psychedelics is surging again, and there is now a new generation of people who are having some type of awakening experience that could really use this information to keep them out of possible dark night cycles.
July 13 at 3:18am · Like · 2
Mr. J.C. For the drug using community, the site erowid.org is pure compassionate action. The focus is "harm reduction", which should be the aim of any rational bodhisattva. People post their experiences with different substances at different doses and you can learn very quickly what might be worthwhile and what to stay far away from. For example:
July 13 at 3:21am · Like
Mr. J.C. http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=42888
Erowid Experience Vaults: Belladonna - Satan Salad - 42888
www.erowid.org
An Experience with Belladonna. 'Satan Salad' by Loose Id
July 13 at 3:21am · Like · Remove Preview
David Vardy The vault is mostly filled with stories of the inexperienced and weekend flippers however. Pikhal is a better source.
July 13 at 3:30am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Regarding many paths to get to the top of the same mountain; Buddhism would disagree with this notion. In fact according to Buddhism, the buddhadharma is the only way out of samsara, and paths such as Advaita etc., can only lead to higher samsaric realms.
Tricycle just wrote about this recently:
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/one-way-nirvana
One Way to Nirvana | Tricycle
www.tricycle.com
This article is the tenth in the Tricycle blog series 10 Misconceptions about Buddhism with scholars Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr.
July 13 at 4:11am · Like · Remove Preview
Ej Alex I think that´s right. But no one says that one has to stay with one tradition. Advaita can serve as kind of skilfull means that will lead to certain realizations. It is also possible to understand truly what is wrong with their view and appreciate even more the teaching of the Buddha. Then it´s not some dogmatic understanding of the shortcomings of these teachings, but it is based on personal experience and not some parroting.
July 13 at 4:32am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Well, I wouldn't say it is dogmatic either way. Dogmatism is possible, but that would depend on the individual and how he or she is relating to such notions.
Different paths and traditions can have different ideas of what it means to be liberated, and I believe this is the case with Buddhism and Hindu traditions. It doesn't mean one is right and the other is wrong, or one is better than the other... of course I am personally biased in the sense that the buddhadharma resonates with me far more than Hindu Advaita etc. ever did. But it isn't that there is anything 'wrong' with their view.
When I first became involved with the buddhadharma it was somewhat over my head, and I actually deviated into Advaita yoga for some time. Understanding Advaita helped to put certain Buddhist principles and ideas in perspective, and Vedanta was very helpful in that way. Ultimately however they are quite different now that I have a clear understanding of their respective views.
July 13 at 4:39am · Edited · Like
Ej Alex It´s just that, I think that the practice of Advaita is closer to Dzogchen than for example Theravada (but of course still not the same). On the other side Dzogchen declares that it contains every lower Yana like Theravada. If someone uses the Advaita methods and then afterwards tries to realize basic Theravada (Anicca, Dukha, Anatta), he won´t need to have some secret Dzogchen, at least in my opinion.
July 13 at 4:52am · Like
Kyle Dixon When Dzogchen says it contains the lower yanas it simply means that Dzogchen itself, as your nature is the heart of the buddhadharma or what all paths are aiming to realize. In the sense that dzogchen is prajñaparamita is mahamudra and so on. So the statement that Dzogchen contains all paths is equivalent to saying prajñaparamita contains all paths.
Advaita and Dzogpachenpo are somewhat different in principle; for one Advaita is an ontological view which reifies an independent, uncaused, indivisible existent (purusha), whereas Dzogchen does not.
There are some similarities of course, but my personal view is that the Advaita methodology is a completely different path from, really anything found in the buddhadharma, dzogchen included.
July 13 at 5:03am · Like
Ej Alex Then how do you explain that Soh and Thusness and everyone that has practiced the same way like them, comes to the same conclusion like the Dzogchen teaching? They all started with Advaita and probably without some secret "direct introduction".
July 13 at 5:09am · Like
Kyle Dixon The 'direct introduction' is just an aspect of the Dzogchen system. Direct introduction isn't a requirement to become liberated, there is no direct introduction in Mahayana or other Sutrayana paths, yet liberation is of course achievable through those vehicles just the same. So direct introduction is only pertinent to the 'system' of Dzogchen.
While Advaita may have played a role in Soh and Thusness' paths (how large or small I can't say), they were (and still are) very much involved with the view of the Buddhadharma. So it isn't as if Advaita was their sole paths which led to the various realizations they have had.
July 13 at 5:20am · Like
Ej Alex And I never thought that Advaita is capable of leading one to the top of the mountain by itself, just that one could reach this place with many ways outside of Dzogchen. Never liked this elitist attitude "lower yanas will take you eons". Any kind of practice can cause damage, I can understand that some tantric energy work is probably more dangerous. But why should they make such a fuss about Dzogchen, while you can talk openly without a problem about Advaita, Theravada and what not? Just a traditional, cultural thing, as I see it. Some exclusive club. It may work of course, but still, I don´t like it. I prefer people like Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Soh and Thusness, people who speak openly and clearly without any kind of dogmatic bullshit.
July 13 at 5:35am · Like · 2
Ej Alex Not that I disrespect the teachings.
July 13 at 5:37am · Like
Kyle Dixon Advaita certainly leads to the top of its mountain, otherwise it would be a useless path, of course it isn't (a useless path) and has survived for centuries as a means for the mode of liberation that Advaita is meant to accomplish.
Dzogchen only makes elitist statements of that kind (the lower yanas taking eons to accomplish) in the expositions on its own view. It is very normal for a system's core texts to compare and contrast itself against other views, and the Dzogchen tantras are no different. That is done to define the system itself, and demonstrate how it stands out from other views and paths.
At the same time, you can see the Dzogchen tantras make statements like this: "Though the different vehicles are beyond concept, there is no more than one if wisdom is realized." or from Vairocana: "According to grades of capacity, there are individual gateways into the innermost view of ultimate dharmata; One will obtain or realize the result by realizing any doctrine in the vehicle of the sublime Dharma."
So the elitist statements are made in context, and as you can see the other yanas are not outright deprecated.
All in all though, the reason Dzogchen says this is again due to the fact that Dzogpachenpo is your inborn nature, and the praxis of Dzogchen involves an initial recognition of that nature, and then familiarization. In that way the principle of the Dzogchen path is different from the paths featured in the other yanas because Dzogchen aims to have the aspirant recognize the nature of their mind on the outset (and then work with revisiting and familiarizing with that nature). For that reason Dzogchen is said to be 'rapid' for those who have the capacity to practice it, because it aims to cut through to unfabricated dharmata from the very beginning, and from there, the definitive meditation is resting in dharmata. This is why you see Dzogchen state that other systems implement mind as the foundation for their paths, while the path of Dzogchen is vidya free of mind.
That subtlety is another reason why the system depends on a relationship with a teacher, because it is extremely simple to misinterpret the teaching as saying something it isn't. It's also very easy to misconstrue the nature of the path, and believe one has recognized wisdom and is practicing the view when in fact one has not. So a qualified teacher is really indispensable in Dzogchen, and the aspect of secrecy helps to maintain the integrity of these easily misinterpreted teachings, while also keeping any misinterpretations which may arise from being spread everywhere.
This all has to understood in the context of how Vajrayana is as a system. The secrecy is far from anything which remotely resembles an attempt to institute an 'exclusive club'.
If Vajrayana doesn't resonate with you then it doesn't, and that is okay too, no reason why it should. To each their own.
July 13 at 6:14am · Edited · Like · 2
Lindsay Funk I think you can only judge a path by the extent to which you've walked it. IMO, Advaita gets caricaturized here in a similar way that Kyle would accuse many of misrepresenting Dzogchen.
We allow skillful means in Buddhism, and grant that many teachings that are first represented in a literal fashion actually just need to serve their purpose before they can be seen as merely provisional. Yet it doesn't seem to be granted that this may be happening in other paths.
For instance, in Greg's case, he talks about reaching the end of suffering through the Direct Path. And he also says that once one has established the "transparent witness" then the dissolving process just naturally occurs on its own. And eventually the tools of the path are themselves dissolved. This is huge, because it means that latter stages of the path unfold inevitably and don't need to be explicitly discussed. So, the path on paper isn't necessarily the path realized.
The world is illusion
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world
I think most criticisms of Advaita stop after the second line. But IMO the the last line is when "mountains become mountains again" and any foreground/background dualism collapses.
BTW, Kyle, since you're usually quick to point out that not all paths go to the top of the mountain, would you mind defining the top of the mountain?
July 13 at 6:14am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Even Greg admits the respective paths are different, for instance:
Someone wrote:
I am trying to realize no self
and am trying to deconstruct things
like trying to see everything as the six senses,
taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else.
anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it.
dont know what I am doing wrong.
but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice.
please help me out.
p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to
the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it,
but not sure if I am doing it correctly.
dont know what I am missing.
would love to get some guidance.
p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice
but also recommended that I ask my question here
as there are more members here
and a lot of people who have already realized anatta.
Greg replies:
Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.
July 13 at 6:17am · Like · 2
David Vardy Ignorance has done a fine enough job as gatekeeper for the open secret. There's really no substitute for amnesia nor is there a better barrier to entry No need to be concerned about who should have access to the teachings and how. Besides, it's never about what's happening.....what's happening being what the concern is about.
July 13 at 6:18am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Lindsay, none of this is meant to criticize Advaita. Advaita isn't being deprecated, it is a beautiful teaching and a fully functioning path which can help sentient beings to overcome suffering.
The only thing that is being contested are the perennialistic type views which state that, for instance, Advaita and the Buddhist paths are the same, or are pointing to the same thing. I don't prescribe to this view for the very reason that I don't see that as being the case when the underlying principles of these paths are evaluated. But if someone else wants to believe that then that is all well and good. We're all entitled to our opinions.
Also, I'm not saying that all paths fail to reach the summit of the mountain, I'm challenging the notion of a single mountain that all paths are traversing in the first place. I'm saying that each path may very well scale its own mountain, and there is nothing wrong with that.
July 13 at 6:25am · Edited · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon I mean, overall the teachings aren't so secret that people cannot (especially in this day in age) research them, or find a teacher to learn the teaching from.
For the most part all you really have to do is find a teacher and ask, or pay attention to what teachers are traveling around, or travel to them... I do both if needed.
July 13 at 6:29am · Like
Lindsay Funk Yes, I getcha, Kyle. It's just that, for instance, many would say that the aim of Buddhism is the end of suffering. Yet Greg, and many others have recognized that through other means.
So, considering the amount of path comparisons that come up, I just like to know what you consider to be the top of the mountain in the traditions that you subscribe to.
July 13 at 6:30am · Like
Mason Spransy ". I'm saying that each path may very well scale its own mountain, and there is nothing wrong with that."
Well, the fact that most of those mountains are still within Samsara probably counts as a "wrong with that"
July 13 at 6:31am · Like · 1
Mason Spransy Insofar as they presume to escape samsara, that is
July 13 at 6:31am · Like
Kyle Dixon However, those mountains being unable to lead beyond samsara is just what Buddhism says, because the statement is predicated on how Buddhism defines liberation. In the context of "Buddhist liberation" those paths do not provide that type of liberation. However that does not mean they do not produce their own liberation, as they define it.
On the other hand if you go an ask someone who practices Advaita yoga if their path does not lead out of samsara, they will of course give you a strange look. That is because they define their path and result in their own context.
So these statements aren't blanket statements of objective truth, they are representative of the structure and path which accords with the system who is making said statement. They are true in their respective contexts... there is certainly not a single context.
When Buddhism states that Vedanta fails to overcome samsara, that is true in the context of Buddhism and how Buddhism defines samsara, or how Buddhism defines nirvana.
Vedanta isn't going to define bondage and liberation in the same way Buddhism does, and therefore the assertion from Buddhism, that Vedanta fails to transcend samsara, no longer makes sense in the context of Vedanta.
They are two different paths.
July 13 at 6:40am · Edited · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon The most important thing is that these traditions allow for sentient beings to overcome suffering, however they accomplish that.
These subtle details and comparative analyses about the differences in paths and views are simply that, just discussions regarding the differences in paths and views.
July 13 at 6:44am · Like · 1
Mason Spransy But Buddhism does proclaim itself to be the supreme path - and justifies that statement by claiming that other traditions do not save us from samsara because their teachings are deluded.
You can be a cultural relativist, and you can be a Buddhist, but it does not seem to me that you can be both at the same time.
July 13 at 6:45am · Like
Mason Spransy And the most important thing is liberation from suffering, not just overcoming it temporarily. Am I wrong?
July 13 at 6:49am · Like
Kyle Dixon Any path speaking from its own perspective is going to assert that its own system is supreme when compared to others.
Hence why traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism have long histories of debate and polemics.
You'll also find Buddhist teachers who say every tradition should be respected and if they lead to a decrease in suffering then that is a wonderful path. So much of this depends on context.
July 13 at 7:11am · Like
Ej Alex By the way, Rigpa is not liberation, but through Rigpa one can realize that what liberates, namely non-conceptual insight into emptiness. The view in the direct path is a different one. But like you mentioned, Kyle, in the end of Gregs book he is talking about the collapse of the substratum. That´s the natural state. The end of a background, aka non-duality, but still without the understanding of absence of inherency. So, one could use that method till point of the collapse of the witness. Afterwards one could just simply use some Bahya contemplation and Nagarjunas middle way. All just a question of understanding the views.
July 13 at 7:13am · Like
Lindsay Funk Ej, when everything is subsumed into awareness, and then even awareness collapses, what could possibly still be viewed as inherent?
July 13 at 7:16am · Like · 1
Mason Spransy Kyle,
Yes, I think all of these different spiritual traditions are wonderful, but one must make a commitment sooner or later. And once you've made that commitment, you can no longer talk from the standpoint of an academic or a window shopper (cultural relativism). It is disingenuous to do otherwise.
So when you say that there is no problem with the goal of Advaita spirituality, that is true from a cultural relativist's standpoint, but it is not true from a Buddhist standpoint. It is not helpful for interfaith dialogue to suspend your own beliefs and commitments.
And it is still very possible to appreciate these traditions while soberly keeping in mind that they are flawed.
Remember: religious beliefs are not opinions, they are claims to truth.
July 13 at 7:21am · Like
Ej Alex It´s not about what any kind of tradition is saying about itself, but the practitioners that realize what is truly helping them to end suffering. I heard from many that know both paths, like Soh and Thusness. At this point it´s still not my own experience, but everyone that knows both kinds of liberations states that the buddhist one is the one that that will lead to the irreversible end of suffering. I trust them, don´t know why.
July 13 at 7:22am · Like
Ej Alex Lindsay Funk, that´s the interesting question. If the teaching is talking about eternal permanence. It could be that this kind of view will condition the experience and block the understanding of change or better said self-liberation or even non-arising. Buddha-nature is impermanence in contrast to some independent, unchanging whatever.
July 13 at 7:32am · Like
Justin Struble Kyle's repeated references to Jackson Peterson, remind me of that story about an old monk and a young monk, where the old monk carries a woman across the stream. if you get my drift. haha
EDIT: And while I agree that Dzogchen teachings should be treated with the utmost respect, care, and devotion, I would still argue against secrecy. Secrecy is just more "mushroom culture" as KFD / DHO folks might term it. And so would many teachers, as many dzogchen teachers have written widely available books openly describing trekcho and togal. Just mho.
Mr. J.C., I like what you're describing here, may i suggest a sort of integration of the two? In regards to the first half of your original post, I would suggest penetrating / seeing the crystal clear unobstructedness, the non-solidity aspect of all experience, as being like clear transparent ungraspable space. non-arisen, like unstructured, unconditioned space.
To integrate this, when one is penetrating to the dis-jointed, pixel-like appearances of scintillating sensations, one can clearly see that the "pixels" themselves are transparent, luminous, and unobstructed in addition to being dis-joint, and without any connection or vantage point. Short summary, both aspects of insight that you describe can be present at once.
Does this make sense to you? Quite often in my practice my experience consists of an integration of these various aspects of insight into the appearance of phenomena all at once / holistically, and this sort of integration results in what i think of as a more complete or mature sort of wisdom / insight arising.
July 13 at 7:34am · Edited · Like · 2
Ej Alex But will one experience some unchanging thing after the collapse of the witness? Or will he perceive every kind of phenomena as himself in contrast to realization of twofold empiness?
July 13 at 7:42am · Like
Lindsay Funk Ej, I don't think either of these conceptions need apply. Beyond the need or relevance of view.
July 13 at 7:45am · Like
Justin Struble The first half, recognizing the non-solidity, unobstructed transparency, is reminiscent of "cutting-through" to me, while the latter part, recognizing the dis-jointedness, and scintillating pixel-like quality of sensations, tends to offer the opportunity of allowing luminosity to be enhanced / shine through unobstructed. To me, both of these aspects of insight / wisdom reinforce one another, and although we can describe them individually, they are actually inseparable.
At any rate, thanks for sharing your insights / experience Justin, they struck a chord with how my own practice is unfolding.
July 13 at 7:47am · Edited · Like · 3
Ej Alex Lindsay Funk But then Buddhism would lead to the same as Hinduism, or am I wrong?
July 13 at 7:48am · Like
Lindsay Funk Ej, let's find 2 Buddhists from different schools and see if they agree. We don't even need to bring in another tradition to see difference at the level if view. Thank God Buddhism is empty too
July 13 at 7:55am · Like
Ej Alex Yeah, but that´s the essence of Buddhism that makes it special in contrast to Hiduism, isn´t it?
July 13 at 8:03am · Like
Ej Alex I mean that it is empty. Don´t think that Hinduism would talk this way about itself
July 13 at 8:04am · Like
Ej Alex The question could also be if the absolute understanding (beyond words) of both is the same, but the relative (concepts and words) is different?
July 13 at 8:07am · Like
Lindsay Funk IMO, these paths can both wind up in total ineffability. You might say the essence of Buddhism is that it has no essence. And you might say that some Advaitists teach that there's only awareness - and not even that. Probably most practitioners get caught up in the weeds somewhere short of no view.
July 13 at 8:12am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Justin writes: "Kyle's repeated references to Jackson Peterson, remind me of that story about an old monk and a young monk, where the old monk carries a woman across the stream. if you get my drift. haha"
No, don't get your drift, but as you are a fan of Jax's teachings, you're obviously going to side against any naysayers. And that is okay.
Justin writes: "...as many dzogchen teachers have written widely available books openly describing trekcho and togal."
Yet all of those texts say that none of those practices should be done without proper transmission from a qualified teacher.
July 13 at 8:21am · Like
Justin Struble Sure, Kyle, but that doesn't mean it is forbidden to discuss the practices / teachings. As they are clearly publicly available. I really don't see the benefit of not discussing practice between practitioners.
There are many vows in many traditions that prohibit discussing practice experiences, and frankly I am skeptical of their benefit. Secrecy can also be harmful. However I haven't advocated anyone take up such practices without transmission / a qualified teacher.
You've never heard of that Fable about the two monks? I'm surprised.
July 13 at 8:27am · Like
Justin Struble "Two monks were making a pilgrimage to venerate the relics of a great Saint. During the course of their journey, they came to a river where they met a beautiful young woman -- an apparently worldly creature, dressed in expensive finery and with her hair done up in the latest fashion. She was afraid of the current and afraid of ruining her lovely clothing, so asked the brothers if they might carry her across the river.
The younger and more exacting of the brothers was offended at the very idea and turned away with an attitude of disgust. The older brother didn't hesitate, and quickly picked the woman up on his shoulders, carried her across the river, and set her down on the other side. She thanked him and went on her way, and the brother waded back through the waters.
The monks resumed their walk, the older one in perfect equanimity and enjoying the beautiful countryside, while the younger one grew more and more brooding and distracted, so much so that he could keep his silence no longer and suddenly burst out, "Brother, we are taught to avoid contact with women, and there you were, not just touching a woman, but carrying her on your shoulders!"
The older monk looked at the younger with a loving, pitiful smile and said, "Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river; you are still carrying her."
The implication here is that you are still carrying some resentment towards Jackson, Kyle.
July 13 at 8:29am · Like
Kyle Dixon Ah, well thinking charlatans do a disservice to whatever it is they allegedly represent isn't exactly resentment my friend.
July 13 at 8:44am · Like · 1
Justin Struble If those thoughts are arising long after said "charlatan" is no longer immediately present in one's experience, then it could be that there is some aversion that is being held onto. It is one thing to oppose what you see as wrong views when they are being propagated in the immediate present; in your presence. It is another to cling to the past and continue acting upon it after the fact. For example, if one notices what they think is wrong views in certain individuals in the present, and immediately assumes there must be some connection to a "charlatan" of the past producing those wrong views in others. That looks like projection / clinging / blaming to me. And what is resentment but a concoction of blame and clinging to past "wrongs". At any rate, be well Kyle.
July 13 at 8:57am · Edited · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon He came up because Apollo is a student of Jax's... therefore it was immediately present.
Man ngag sde teachings being spoken of openly on Facebook came up as a topic, Jax teaches man ngag sde openly on Facebook.
It's not rocket science.
July 13 at 8:59am · Like
Justin Struble Ah, well I was not aware of any connection between "Apollo" and Jax.. I guess I missed that part of the discussion.
July 13 at 9:00am · Like
Robert Dominik Aw shit. People discussing high-level teachings (without seeking for a personal guidance from a truly realised master) on facebook again xD
July 13 at 9:18am · Like
Robert Dominik It's a shame that people don't want to practice other practices that for example Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche transmits (for a good reason - there are so many powerful and transformative practices that improve one's capacity before going further) but they immediately want to skip stages and jump at things they're not ready for. He even mentioned this himself. He mentioned this is in the context of XXXXTOPSECRETGUESSWHATITOGALYOURMOMMAXYZLOLTOMUCHSWAG and said that some people we're angry at him and called him uncompassionate because he didn't feel they were ready for getting some instructions from him. He said that if these poor beings want to destroy themselves then it's their business but that it's sad It's a shame that there are people out there who claim to be students of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche but actually deny and reject sensible statements from Rinpoche on these topics. One would wonder where did they get their Fakechen from if the Lineage Masters don't know shit and don't know how to teach according to these "students" xD
July 13 at 9:41am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. "So when you say that there is no problem with the goal of Advaita spirituality, that is true from a cultural relativist's standpoint, but it is not true from a Buddhist standpoint."
I would think the mature Buddhist would be able to hold multiple points of view simultaneously.
July 13 at 4:13pm · Like
Mr. J.C. "To integrate this, when one is penetrating to the dis-jointed, pixel-like appearances of scintillating sensations, one can clearly see that the "pixels" themselves are transparent, luminous, and unobstructed in addition to being dis-joint, and without any connection or vantage point. Short summary, both aspects of insight that you describe can be present at once"
Thanks, I will look into this. What I find personally is that the disjoint/vantageless experience seems so complete (as in free of lack) that there seems no need to look at anything else. That said, I'll try to exert some effort and see what I find.
July 13 at 4:17pm · Like
Justin Struble cool, please continue to share. when both aspects you describe are present at once, when there is clear seeing of the vantageless disjoint sensations, co-arising with the wisdom that the sensations are unobstructed, insubstantial, transparent, and luminous, then one has arrived at suchness ( imo ). additionally, there is the realization that there was never any arrival, or anyone to arrive, and that suchness was always already the case.
July 13 at 4:56pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Which is the beginning of the definitive path.
July 13 at 6:51pm · Like · 3
John Tan Is it necessary to establish a causal relationship between the prajna wisdom of emptiness to the unmade mind essence/clarity/original face? We need to integrate the two in practice but is there a direct causal relationship between the 2? Does the practice of one affirms and lead to the other?
July 13 at 7:07pm · Like · 1
David Vardy No need to integrate. Prajna is the functional component of the original face, so to speak.
July 14 at 12:28am · Like
David Vardy "Unobstructed, insubstantial, transparent and luminous..." does not appear 'as such' in the presence of an assumed seer.
July 14 at 12:34am · Like
James Foley I think the value of talking openly about practices is really necessary, in fact I think it's not done nearly enough, not even among people who like to do it. This comes from my experience where I feel I wasted thousands of hours because I absolutely needed to do something about my experience yet no one pointed me in the right way, even though that was a fairly simple task to do. I got lucky and eventually happened upon a teacher who did expose me to the things I needed.
But that took three years. Before that there were a small handful of teachers, more when you consider more official Buddhist retreat teachers, a couple priests, a Tibetan ex-Llama, and about seven yoga teachers who totally overlooked my problem.
.
I find it strange to say that wanting to talk about a practice outwardly entails a layer of pomposity for whomever may think they can do it. The reality is that some people just don't want to kill themselves, hence they are turning to meditation techniques. That's the impetus.
My experience with official organized sangha has been more noise than sound, more people who have judged me even when I've behaved harmlessly, and I haven't been able to tell where the practice is in these institutions. For instance, one of the community members equating 'equanimity' with 'equality in relationships'. Right? Equanimity is when you're nice to someone.
What?
Some people need reliable practices, so who is going to give it to them, and in a way where it will work?
July 14 at 4:13pm · Edited · Like · 3
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Hey Justin. Is the "reality pixels" you mention akin to the dazzling, glimmering of sunlight on the surface of water? Like, almost literally like that, except it's not quite experienced as visual phenomena.
Any suggestions on how to, first of all, reliably bring it about and intensify it, and second, how to work with it?
July 23 at 7:32am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Sure. I would say that it is similar. For me, approaching this from a visual standpoint is easy. I can look at anything in the room, and especially solid colors have a every-changing shimmering quality to them.
Probably the easiest way is to walk up to a wall with some shadow on it and get close enough so that the solid color of the wall takes up most of the visual field. Instead of being seen as one "thing", it is seen as millions of simultaneous experiences that aren't really connected to each other.
July 23 at 11:10am · Like
Mr. J.C. Physical sensation is probably the next easiest. If I find some sensation int he body that seems to be tingling, like the pressure from my butt in the chair, then I can clfeek all that tingling simultaneously as disjoint independent experiences.
July 23 at 11:11am · Like
Mr. J.C. Hearing is fairly more difficult, which makes sense to me since I understand sound as vibrations as different frequencies, so it has less information than vision or feel does. However, what you can do with hearing is to treat it as a separate smaller set of pixels that is independent from other senses such as seeing or feeling.
July 23 at 11:14am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Where this becomes most applicable is when there is some feeling of contraction within the field of experience. This contraction or tension is its own set of disjoint experiences that are separate from all of the other experiences. While attention is held in this way on the infinitely slippery disjoint experiences, I find it is not really possible to cling/suffer.
July 23 at 11:16am · Like
Mr. J.C. What really wraps it all up for me is the insight that exactly whatever is being experienced right now is the only thing that can be experienced right now. It is not possible to be missing out on some alternative experience, because if it doesn't exist right now, it doesn't exist as an experience period.
In this space, it is not important to objectify a sense of self or to really investigate, because exactly what is arising is already complete and perfect because there is no other way that it can possibly be.
This is very pragmatic. If there is no suffering, there is no problem, so why try harder or look further?
July 23 at 11:19am · Like
Mr. J.C. Also, if these non-arising "things" are experienced simultaneously what must it mean? Does it mean that there is an observer that is able to take it all in simultaneously, or is it more likely that these individual experiences are self-luminous or self-known to themselves and simply integrated within a sphere of consciousness?
July 23 at 11:20am · Like
David Vardy I think it's appropriate to quote John Tan here from a different thread, "At certain point, the magic of clarity, the effortless spontaneity, the marvelous display, the miraculous activity and the perfection that defies all effort must be fully acknowledged."
July 23 at 6:07pm · Like
Justin Struble http://apracticejournal.wordpress.com/.../awareness.../
this is a really great description of rigpa.
Awareness Continuum Stage by Stage
apracticejournal.wordpress.com
This has been my formal practice for over two months now. The differences betwee... See More
July 24 at 12:22am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Justin Struble it's important to understand that the qualities of clarity, vividness, freshness, looseness, etc... that are authentic signs of abiding in rigpa, are not in of themselves our essence / true nature, but rather they are ( changing / dynamic ) qualities associated with abiding ( or with their absence not abiding ) in recognition / knowledge of our nature; ie rigpa knowledge.
if we cling to these qualities as our true nature, we have erred. our definitive true nature is always spontaneously present, even when the mind is dull, distracted, bored, contracted, etc.. throughout every and all states, even when we lack recognition / knowledge of our nature, our nature is always precisely as it has always already been. our true nature never deviates and does not change. this is the definitive essence, the primordially and spontaneously present knowing that is always already the case without exception.
additionally, our definitive nature / essence is primordially free from grasping / clinging / reification / identification ... it cannot be taken as an object of grasping, it cannot be pinned down, located, found, etc .. and as soon as our essence / definitive nature is clearly recognized with rigpa knowledge, all grasping / clinging / reification / identification is immediately self liberated.
therefore it does not make sense to continually guard against our nature being reified or identified with, unless one is asserting that those who are reifying / identifying haven't truly recognized their nature, and are instead reifying some transient quality.
July 24 at 12:51am · Edited · Like · 1
Soh But Justin, what you're saying sounds like reifying a Turiya to me -- Turiya in Advaita means 'that which transcends the three states'. What do you say about that?
July 24 at 1:18am · Like · 1
Justin Struble I don't know how much more clearly one can say there is no reification, Soh ... it seems to me that you're creating strawmans.
July 24 at 1:21am · Like
Soh You see, the Advaitins will also tell you that Turiya is not a reification. It is the eternal consciousness underlying and transcending the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep. I used to hold that view too. It certainly didn't felt like reification when I was going through that phase. I was established as a deathless, transcendent Awareness which was held to be my very essence, not transient, but from which all waking/sleeping states are cognized and comes and goes like dust coming and going within a bright sun-lit space.
July 24 at 1:24am · Like · 2
Soh By "eternal" I mean imperturbable.. not in the sense of eternally existing in time (the Advaitins will also tell you it is Timelessly self existing)
July 24 at 1:25am · Like · 1
Justin Struble What I'm discussing isn't Advaita, Soh, it's Dzogchen, and in Dzogchen, our essence / nature isn't eternal, and it isn't inherently existing, it is the inseparable union of clear light and emptiness.
July 24 at 1:25am · Like
Justin Struble Soh, I am curious, are you comparing Dzogchen to Advaita?
July 24 at 1:27am · Like
Soh Not necessarily. I'm just commenting and questioning you based on your descriptions that's all.
July 24 at 1:27am · Like
David Vardy Dzogchen can sometimes sound like Advaita.
July 24 at 1:28am · Like
David Vardy Much of the talk about Rigpa without DO gives that impression.
July 24 at 1:29am · Unlike · 1
Justin Struble Well, Dzogchen is unequivocal in it's assertion of a true nature / essence as far as I see it. And I also think Dzogchen is completely in accord with the emptiness teachings / the rest of the dharma. And I also think that there is a very clear difference between Dzogchen and Advaita, but I would hope this thread doesn't turn into another one of those discussions... ie; Advaita vs Dzogchen.
July 24 at 1:30am · Like
Soh David: So does (some) of Zen, (some) of Theravada, at least from (some of) the teacher's writing...
July 24 at 1:30am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy When Rigpa is seen as a stand alone essence and not the knowing quality associated with what's happening then it tends to sound like Advaita.
July 24 at 1:33am · Unlike · 3
Justin Struble I can see how that can be misunderstood, David, but it's also important to understand that according to Dzogchen our essence is indeed a bare / naked awareness or wakefulness, that does not arise in dependence upon objects. But it is also empty and therefor primordially free from grasping / reification ... ie; in accord with anatta.
If we mistake our nature / essence as someTHING that arises on dependence of objects / causes / conditions then we are missing a key aspect of the realization pointed out in Dzogchen.
July 24 at 1:35am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy The experience is continuous because what's happening is never not happening.
July 24 at 1:36am · Unlike · 1
Justin Struble It is easy to mistake the essence / nature teachings as positing inherent existence, but that is not the case.
July 24 at 1:37am · Unlike · 2
David Vardy It's like a tuning fork that doesn't come to rest. The vibration can't be separated from what's happening.
July 24 at 1:39am · Like
Soh David Vardy: Well said. I've experienced contentless Presence/subtlest clear light in dreamless sleep too (and after anatta all 'happenings' including that, are flat/free of hierarchy)... but imputing it as a metaphysical standalone essence is not necessary. Anatta is realizing there is no background/underlying source and substratum behind the 'mere self-luminous manifestation/happening'.
Dalai Lama:
"In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra...
...***It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is not interrupted…***"
Geoff:
"...For example, Sajjana's Mahayanottaratantrasastropadesa equates tathagatagarbha with luminous mind, and then explains that although this luminous nature is not-conditioned (unlike ordinary states of mind that are contingent upon the four conditions), the luminous nature arises due to the previous moment of that same luminous mind. Shakya Chogden has a similar understanding, stating that although the tathagatagarbha is often said to be permanent, etc., "that is also done in terms of its continuum. Otherwise, [it should] be [understood as] impermanent, precisely because of having an immediately preceding condition [deriving] from [its previous] moment."
July 24 at 1:39am · Edited · Like · 2
David Vardy Any stand alone essence is a background and ultimately conceptual.
July 24 at 1:43am · Like
Soh In 2008 Thusness wrote:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../03/transience.html
The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing.
-------------
There is no this that is more this than that.
Although thought arises and ceases vividly,
Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be.
The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently
Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity.
Although non-dual is seen with clarity,
The urge to remain can still blind subtly.
Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely.
Die utterly
And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.
~ Thusness/Passerby
And hence... "Awareness" is not anymore "special" or "ultimate" than the transient mind.
Awakening to Reality: The Transience
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
July 24 at 1:44am · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Justin Struble In Dzogchen our nature / essence is not a standalone essence or subtratum, but is the very nature of all experience / phenomena / appearances, it is an innately non-dual realization.
July 24 at 1:44am · Edited · Unlike · 2
David Vardy Rigpa is very subtle in one sense because the experience is continuous.
July 24 at 1:44am · Like
Justin Struble Soh, this:
"The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing."
is exactly what i was referring to with the error of clinging to clarity or vividness.
July 24 at 1:47am · Edited · Unlike · 1
Geovani Geo No-thing experiences appearences. Appearences do not experience no-thing.
July 24 at 1:47am · Like
Geovani Geo Take physical space as a simile. An object is non-separable from space nonetheless it is not identical either. Likewise.... seeming appearances are non-separate from "my essence" nonetheless they are not identical.
July 24 at 1:51am · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David wrote:
> When Rigpa is seen as a stand alone essence and not the knowing quality associated with what's happening then it tends to sound like Advaita.
If you could grant a sphere such that nothing can be said to be "happening" and there is no "what", yet there is (total) awakeness, would that qualify as a "conceptual background stand alone essence"?
July 24 at 1:51am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Total Being, not in the western philosophical substantial/essential sense, but in contrast to knowledge—what one 'is', one doesn't need to 'know'.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like
Justin Struble "Dalai Lama:
"In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra...
...***It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is not interrupted…***"
Geoff:
"...For example, Sajjana's Mahayanottaratantrasastropadesa equates tathagatagarbha with luminous mind, and then explains that although this luminous nature is not-conditioned (unlike ordinary states of mind that are contingent upon the four conditions), the luminous nature arises due to the previous moment of that same luminous mind. Shakya Chogden has a similar understanding, stating that although the tathagatagarbha is often said to be permanent, etc., "that is also done in terms of its continuum. Otherwise, [it should] be [understood as] impermanent, precisely because of having an immediately preceding condition [deriving] from [its previous] moment."
this is true from one perspective. however we have to realize that ultimately all appearances are non-arisen, and that means that arising, presenting, and dissolving are illusory impressions, and that applies to the "continuum" of our essence equally to the continuum of all appearances which are likewise non-arisen, and inseparably non-dual.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like
Justin Struble so, we need to understand that arising, presenting, and ceasing are actually conceptual constructs / elaborations / imputations.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like · 2
David Vardy That's often the Advaita argument. Awareness being aware of Awareness.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like
Geovani Geo Waht is is not advaita or buddhist.
July 24 at 1:55am · Like
Justin Struble that deconstruction / understanding just resolves in acknowledging that wisdom / the nature of reality is ultimately inconceivable ... or as John Tan: put it:
"At certain point, the magic of clarity, the effortless spontaneity, the marvelous display, the miraculous activity and the perfection that defies all effort must be fully acknowledged."
July 24 at 1:57am · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David, that's either less sophisticated wisdom, or it is a turn of phrase—there's no such twisting or bending in that sphere; no 'it' 'doing' anything or occupying a position or relation like 'of'.
July 24 at 1:58am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Can that which aknowledges be aknowledged?
July 24 at 1:58am · Like
David Vardy Conceptually it lacks flow Stian.
July 24 at 1:59am · Like
Justin Struble David, Dzogchen clearly points out that Rigpa is indeed non-dual, when our essence / nature is realized, it is self-realized. It does not require mediation of any phenomena or appearances, but can be known directly as bare / naked non-conceptual awakeness / knowingness, aware of itself. An example of this is abiding in rigpa during deep sleep, while no objects are appearing to the mind.
July 24 at 1:59am · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Yes, it lacks flow, which is why it is said to be immutable and synonyms to that effect.
But that only amounts to reification or hypostatization in terms. The living, actual realization resolves that.
July 24 at 2:00am · Edited · Like · 1
Geovani Geo Is not the basic duality non-apparent/apparent -luminosity dissolved as nondual when fully realized?
July 24 at 2:00am · Edited · Like
Justin Struble Another example is realizing clear light at the moment of death.
July 24 at 2:01am · Like
David Vardy Rigpa seems as if it's operating 24-7 but I prefer to veer away from talk concerning deep sleep.
July 24 at 2:01am · Like
Geovani Geo To talk of 24-7 is from a timebound perspective. Gnosis/rigpa is timeless.
July 24 at 2:04am · Edited · Like
David Vardy That's why I don't talk about deep sleep.
July 24 at 2:04am · Like
David Vardy Let deep sleep answer it's own questions..lol
July 24 at 2:05am · Like
Justin Struble David, it is possible to abide in rigpa with no objects / proliferation occuring while "awake" as well.. ultimately there is no difference between abiding in rigpa ( as naked / bare wakefulness ) during deep sleep, or while sitting during the day while "awake".
July 24 at 2:05am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble
July 24 at 2:06am · Like
Geovani Geo The "proof" is that you wake up from it
July 24 at 2:07am · Like
Soh Geovani:
In the experience here there are a couple of realizations...
Realizing self-luminous Awareness or "I AM realization". Awareness aware of itself as just the pure I, self-aware Presence. This is non-dual knowing/being, but then due to not knowing its relation with all appearance, it is seen to be dualistic -- I am I, phenomena are phenomena or objects arising and subsiding within the background of being.
One Mind: non-dual seeing, subject/object collapses into an inseparability where the space of awareness and contents of awareness are seen to be inseparable, but not a two way equivalence. Reflections are the mirror but the mirror is not the reflections. Non-dualistic but inherent view.
Anatta: completely realizing the illusion of a background self behind experience, no longer subject/object inseparability but seeing there is no subject, no agent, no 'the awareness' besides the mere foreground self-luminous manifestation... all qualities of experience, including space, or sound, etc, are purely subjectless manifestation.
As Daniel Ingram wrote before, "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." -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../rigpa-and...
This is just the beginning then later deeper insights into D.O. and emptiness manifests.
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.
July 24 at 2:08am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
David Vardy Did Buddha even speak about deep sleep? If he did I haven't found evidence of it. Soh?
July 24 at 2:09am · Like
Soh " It does not require mediation of any phenomena or appearances"
You define contentless awareness as not a phenomena or appearance, but to me that contentless awareness too is appearance. It may or may not be just a difference of terminologies. There is no subject besides appearance... is the realization of anatta. Seeing contentless awareness as being a substratum (even if it is 'inseparable from appearance') either being always the same throughout all states, or 'modulating itself into various expressions', is substantialism.
July 24 at 2:10am · Edited · Like · 2
Geovani Geo Annata is the realization that the subject can not be referred to in any way.... not that there is no subject. Well..... THIS is beyond subject or object
July 24 at 2:11am · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Not contentless awareness, but simply wakefulness, which is not a subject (though the conviction of just that is indeed a key delusion).
July 24 at 2:13am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble Soh, if you want to call contentless awareness an appearance, that is fine too. I illustrate it in that way as a skillful means, to try and point out that our nature is not something which arises on dependence of objects, or which requires objects appearing, in order to be realized. This is just a means of opposing or deconstructing dualistic views.
July 24 at 2:14am · Edited · Like
David Vardy That's clinging to a duality, Geo.
July 24 at 2:14am · Like
Geovani Geo NOt really, David. The whole luminous apperance is a kind of movement. But movement is aknowledged by non-movement. They are not separate.
July 24 at 2:15am · Like
Justin Struble generally i think of "appearance" as the dualistic experience of "objects" appearing to a "witness".
July 24 at 2:16am · Like
Geovani Geo Seeming appearences are the subject like waves to the ocean.
July 24 at 2:17am · Like
David Vardy Read again what Soh just wrote.
July 24 at 2:17am · Like
Geovani Geo But you can not reduce the ocean to just the waves-field
July 24 at 2:17am · Like
David Vardy There is no subject besides appearance
July 24 at 2:18am · Like
Geovani Geo David, either subject/object duality when there is a conceptualized background.... or JUST the subject which is no other then appearence.
July 24 at 2:20am · Like
Justin Struble Soh, basic wakefulness, is exactly the same in every moment of experience, and in all states, but realizing this, does not imply that it abides separate from those states, that conclusion in itself is based on dualistic views.
July 24 at 2:21am · Like · 1
Geovani Geo But "no other" does not mean identical. Basic wakefulness, lucid space, gnosis, rigpa is not separate from anything.... nonetheless is not identical to the limited field of its own reflection.
July 24 at 2:23am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Take time. Rigpa is/includes time, but you can not say that rigpa is restricted to time.
July 24 at 2:26am · Like
Geovani Geo the same with space, materiality, luminosity...AND appearence.
July 24 at 2:27am · Like
Soh "But you can not reduce the ocean to just the waves-field"
This reminded me of something I wrote before in this group.
Jackson Peterson: Soh, when you are "seeing just the seeing" and "hearing just the heard", is your awareness penetrating through and beyond the heard and seen into infinite space revealing the empty and transparent nature of the "seen" and the "heard"?
November 24, 2013 at 12:31am · Like
Soh: Is this necessary unless one is seeing "something" extra, isn't thought already transparent and empty? Isn't sound already transparent and empty? Aren't dancing sensations already always transparent and empty?
November 24, 2013 at 12:48am · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson: Yes ! But are they dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness?
November 24, 2013 at 1:36am · Like
Soh: No, sensations are not dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness. The vast transparent dimension of pure conscious sensations are dancing about.
November 24, 2013 at 10:07am · Like · 11
July 24 at 2:28am · Like · 2
David Vardy Appearance is free of subject, non dual and non objective in the absence of a subject.
July 24 at 2:30am · Like
Geovani Geo I understood what you mean... but cant agree. The dance can only be aknowledged through/as/by non-dancing.
July 24 at 2:30am · Like
Justin Struble if i said for example, that all sensations / appearances / phenomena, are all equally empty, and one taste. and that the emptiness of those sensations is exactly the same, in nature, not increasing, not decreasing.
i doubt there would be much disagreement with that statement.
in the exact same way, the basic wakefulness of every moment, of all sensations and appearances, of all the various states, is exactly the same in nature throughout, not increasing, not decreasing, and is in fact inseparable from the emptiness nature of all phenomena.
this basic wakefulness and emptiness are inseparable and it is possible to realize basic wakefulness and emptiness nakedly, without any other objects or content appearing to the mind.
July 24 at 2:30am · Edited · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland There's an exhortation here to consider and re-consider the possibility of a resolution of this. Leave the details for later.
I think that receptiveness is key and most important
July 24 at 2:30am · Like
Geovani Geo Stian... just having fun in trying to word it
July 24 at 2:31am · Like
Geovani Geo The emptinnes of sensation/appearence/world is not pointing to some quality of those.... but pointing to the nature of the subject.
July 24 at 2:32am · Like
David Vardy Beautiful Soh.
July 24 at 2:34am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I like to do that, too, ("trying to word it") but part of the resolution is the complete elusiveness
It's so obvious that talking about it reifies and misrepresents.
July 24 at 2:34am · Edited · Like · 2
Geovani Geo OK... let me try this. If appearances/world where identical to their awareness (bi-univocaly)... then how could we wake up from deep sleep? From coma?
July 24 at 2:35am · Edited · Like
David Vardy I can't help thinking of receptacle when I hear receptive Stian...lol
July 24 at 2:36am · Like
David Vardy We don't Geo.
July 24 at 2:37am · Like
Geovani Geo David, yes you are right. I will re-word it. How would appearences re-appear?
July 24 at 2:38am · Like
David Vardy Deep sleep and coma are only third person accounts of an experience which doesn't exist in first person.
July 24 at 2:39am · Like
David Vardy There isn't a reappear. Only appearance
July 24 at 2:39am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Thanks for a stimulating ( ) convo guys. I'm out for now.
July 24 at 2:39am · Like · 2
Geovani Geo Yes, but you know you slept by the clock.. dont you? From say...5 to 7 there was absence of appearences. Then they re-appeared. Where where they in those 2 hours?
July 24 at 2:43am · Edited · Like
David Vardy Only by the clock....
July 24 at 2:42am · Like
David Vardy Rigpa knows no sleep.
July 24 at 2:44am · Like
Geovani Geo .... hard to express this...
July 24 at 2:45am · Like
Geovani Geo Could you put in words where exactly there seems to be a disagreement in our POV? I am not sure I can
July 24 at 2:46am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Just a question DAvid (to stimulate ) With the dissolution of the body/mind/wordl/appearences..... is it the end?
July 24 at 2:48am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Or... the ending of time is also the ending of timeless-ness?
July 24 at 2:50am · Like
Soh On 'remainder', someone once wrote:
"it is just clear now how there is an imputation we put on Awareness as being "separate' from experience, as some sort of "stand alone" awareness". I have always experienced awareness as experience inseparably so, but didn't notice the subtle imputation that gives still a separate implication of being a remainder, when all things are absent. Being wouldn't know itself outside of experience. If being did know itself in total voidness, that very "knowing" would itself be an experience, hence the void would not be void. God cannot be separated from creation, because the potential for creation is already Known."
On time, I once wrote:
"Time is just a construct like self. The notion that it takes time for me to walk from point A to B, which implies distance, space and time, deconstructs when we realize there is no atemporal abiding entity or self that is the traveller (this implies I am a truly existing atemporal self that is separate from time/the stream of transient phenomenality, which is not the case). In fact there is not even 'traveling' or 'movement' when Point A is only point A or being-time-A, point B is only point B being-time-B, each instant is whole and complete - there is nothing subjective or objective that is separate from each time-instant that abides and travels from A to B. Where time is being and being is time (things do not occur 'in' or 'pass through' time - they ARE time, as everything is irremediably temporal), there is Only being-time which is the sun and the moon and the stars, wherein there is neither an atemporal object passing through time nor an atemporal subject witnessing or passing through the passage of time and space from one point to another, and neither is it the case of one thing becoming another thing (winter is winter, spring is spring, winter does not turn into spring). Each instance of sight, sound, etc, is an entire and whole being-time independent of past and future (it occupies or IS a unique manifestation-position), yet inclusive of all causes and conditions spanning all time-space in a single moment that transcends the structures of time-object-self dichotomy. Each instant is a happening without movement. Time stops in the midst of temporality but Not by transcending to some unmoved backdrop."
July 24 at 2:55am · Edited · Like · 2
Geovani Geo "Time stops in the midst of temporality but Not by transcending to some unmoved backdrop." Well you can put it in another way: time is an addendum (or restriction) to timelessness. Then again: they are non-separate but not biunivocally identical either
July 24 at 3:01am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. "Rigpa is/includes time" Huh? IMO, Rigpa has nothing at all to do with time.
July 24 at 3:02am · Like
Geovani Geo Allow me another simile. Are sub-atomic field (or the subtlest particle ever) and the field of objects identical or non-identical? Because this is almost exactly the case with gnosis and objects/events/appearences
July 24 at 3:06am · Like
Geovani Geo Justin, yes. Nonetheless it "knows" time. It is non-spacial but knows space.
July 24 at 3:08am · Like
Geovani Geo Time-bound castles are constructed with timeless bricks. Are the bricks and the castle identical?
July 24 at 3:09am · Like
Mr. J.C. I think you're over-defining Rigpa.
July 24 at 3:09am · Like
Mr. J.C. Personally, I don't find philosophizing about castles and bricks very conducive to just recognizing this present experience. Others may get more entertainment out of such things and thats cool.
July 24 at 3:10am · Like
Geovani Geo I am just trying to use words to something that is my essential nature. Trying to point to that which is absolutely nor referable.
July 24 at 3:10am · Like
Soh There are two ways to see timelessness. You may see 'something' as timeless. I see manifestation is timeless. Time, self, objects is constructed out of timeless bricks -- which is manifestation.
.............
Thusness in 2009:
I think realization and development will eventually reach the same destination.
A practitioner that experience the “Self” will initially treat
1.The “Source as the Light of Everything”.
then
2. He/she will eventually move to the experience that the “Light is really the Everything”.
In the first case, the Light will appear to be still and the transience appears to be moving. Collapsing of space and time will only be experienced when one resides in Self. However if the mind continues to see the 'Light' as separated from the 'Everything' , then realization will appear to be apart from development.
In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point.
However what has a yogi overcome when moving from case 1 to 2 and what exactly is the cause of separation in the first place? I think realizing this cause is of utmost importance for solving the paradox of realization and development.
July 24 at 3:11am · Edited · Like · 4
Geovani Geo Justin, philosophy may be in hte readers mind alone.
July 24 at 3:11am · Like
Geovani Geo Soh... I fully understand your point.
July 24 at 3:14am · Like
Soh The very idea that consciousness knows things is what is deconstructed through anatta and dependent origination and emptiness.
Piya Tan wrote: "Although in our daily language, it is common to speak of "knowing," “feeling,” "cognizing," or "perceiving" sense-objects, in the syntax of dependent arising, one does not really experience anything -- it simply is the experience that arises when the requisite conditions are present."
http://www.purifymind.com/EcologyMind.htm
- Although it is common to speak of cognitive awareness as if it actively cognizes objects, in the syntax of dependent arising cognitive awareness does not actually cognize anything—it simply is the awareness which arises when the requisite conditions come together.10 Vasubandhu, author of the fifth-century Abhidharma-kos'a, makes precisely this point:
The su-tra teaches: "By reason of the organ of sight and of visible matter there arises the visual consciousness": there is not there either an organ that sees, or visible matter that is seen; there is not there any action of seeing, nor any agent that sees; this is only a play of cause and effect. In the light of [common] practice, one speaks, metaphorically, of this process: "The eye sees, and the consciousness discerns." But one should not cling to these metaphors.11
In other words, to interpret vijña-na as an act of cognition rather than an occurrence of cognitive awareness is to ignore the syntax of dependent arising, which takes no active subject. Once again, the traditional Buddhist denial of a substantive, unchanging entity may be seen as less a metaphysical position than a function of its mode of analysis.12
Cognition, in these terms, is thus neither purely subjective nor wholly objective. Like a transaction that takes place between individuals, cognitive awareness occurs at the interface, the concomitance of a sense-organ and its correlative stimulus. Cognitive awareness is thus also neither an exact "mirror of nature" which reflects things "as they are"—since what constitutes an "object" is necessarily defined by the capacities of a particular sense organ; nor is it a unilateral projection of a priori categories—since the cognitive capacities of a sense organ are also correlatively defined by the kinds of stimuli that may impinge upon them. This entails a number of important implications, for discerning cognitive awareness is not only an event that occurs temporally, but one which equally depends upon relational distinctions—and relational distinctions are hardly substances.
Buddhist steps to an ecology of mind
www.purifymind.com
This essay explores such possibilities by focusing upon two core concepts, the d... See More
July 24 at 3:14am · Like · Remove Preview
Geovani Geo Ah.. but cognitive awareness is already a construction! this is why the word "awareness" at this point is useless. Let me try this then: is there only movement?
July 24 at 3:17am · Like
Soh Movement implies an entity abiding somewhere, coming from an origin, and a place it will go to. Transience is purely manifestation. We can look into its nature. Does the burning flame come from somewhere or go somewhere? Seamless dependencies, transient fire, vivid dream-like appearance... no coming or going.
July 24 at 3:20am · Edited · Like
Soh Also: movement requires a vantagepoint of an 'observer' to which movement, speed, can be measured. That vantagepoint itself should be scrutinized. Two cars going in the same speed doesn't see each other as moving, only two cars going at different speeds, or one car being stationary will perceive another car as moving. What if there is no one car observing another?
July 24 at 3:22am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble "In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point."
.....
"There are two ways to see timelessness. You may see 'something' as timeless. I see manifestation is timeless. Time, self, objects is constructed out of timeless bricks -- which is manifestation."
Great post Soh, some of these things are resolved in my experience in a certain way:
"Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment."
yes! this is what non-arisen is like ime. everything with this realization is known as one taste. maturing / deepening of this realization should therefore result in the following:
arising, abiding, and ceasing are seen as illusory imputations, and from this, we realize that sensations or appearances being constructed of "timeless bricks" is also an illusory imputation, THERE ARE NO BRICKS! no pixels. no individual sensations! these phenomena are seen through. to continue seeing sensations / manifestation as timeless bricks is still an inherent view!
instead there is illusory appearances but they are always recognized in terms of their not moving and their nature as being empty, unobstructed, and luminous without increase or decrease. this is the all equality wisdom.
July 24 at 3:27am · Edited · Unlike · 1
Soh Your 'illusory appearance' is what I meant by 'manifestation'. Not to imply substance-view.. timeless bricks can be quite misleading
July 24 at 3:41am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble since phenomena / sensations / manifestation ( illusory appearances )* have never actually arisen, abided, or ceased, it doesn't make sense to say the empty, luminous nature has ever moved as some substantial substance to generate them, especially since the nature is itself clearly known as empty / insubstantial.
July 24 at 3:41am · Edited · Like
David Vardy "Enlightenment is living beyond measure" J. Krishnamurti. Without deconstructing living, just accepting it as simply what's happening in the absence of an agent I think this quote is quite elegant. It goes beyond an ontology and represents more a soteriological position. Freedom from duality.
July 24 at 3:51am · Like
David Vardy Movement is not experienced. It's imagined.
July 24 at 3:57am · Like · 1
Justin Struble indeed. without the conceptions of movement; ie arising, abiding, and ceasing, and without any objects or phenomena which inherently exist to move, so too must one abandon the conception of "transience".
July 24 at 3:58am · Edited · Like
David Vardy The 'self' is a complete package in some respects. Without space and time it doesn't 'stand a chance'. Even as 'absence' it requires space and time as an extension of itself.
July 24 at 4:09am · Like
Kyle Dixon Coarse transience (entities arising and ceasing) is seen through, but there is also subtle transience which is the disjoint nature of non-arising manifestation.
July 24 at 4:10am · Unlike · 1
David Vardy Coming and going versus expanding and contracting?
July 24 at 4:26am · Like
Kyle Dixon Lack of linking or continuity in appearance. Without a core or essence to bind apparent instances of manifestation to one another each apparent instance is unique and unrelated.
July 24 at 4:48am · Like · 2
Mr. J.C. Kyle Dixon - for me, what you just wrote is the key difference in suffering vs not suffering.
July 24 at 4:53am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I re-read the discussion, and I'm liking the whole thing. But something still bugs me.
I don't want to claim that I thoroughly understand "awareness is simply manifestation", because as far as I know, I've not had the anatta realization spoken of. But seeing how often this comes up and how much has been written on it here (which I've read), can I at least say that I kinda get it?
This thing about 'sensations' is bugging me and so is the notion of 'manifestation'. As I said, I kinda get the "no awareness aside from manifestation", but why is manifestation left here?
I really liked that quote about 'remainder'—very succinct and precise. And what bugs me is that there is 'remainder' in "no awareness aside from manifestation", and that's "manifestation"/"sensations"/"foreground".
I think quietly to myself that this is sign of lack of realization of emptiness.
This 'sphere' I'm talking about, which I might unfortunately have too unequivocally called awareness, is such that all *signification* is completely gone: signlessness. This signlessness is the knife's edge upon which appearance and emptiness is immaculately, ineffably balanced (but fully realizable).
In my experience, when the time comes to try and express this, formulate it, I'm but left with a negation of manifestation. Not that that's what it's *really* like, but when I'm pressed to formulate it, that's what it comes out as.
There is no seeing, no hearing, no sensing—never mind whether that's with or without a witnessing subject! Not because there is NO seeing/hearing/sensing, but because the seeing/hearing/sensing is utterly, entirely, totally *insignificant*. For all practical intents and purposes it is non-existent, though it does go on (which is yet again saying too much).
What is left there—what *seems* to be significant—is what is so cleverly formulated as "the clear light". Now how can a 'clear' light be significant? It pretty much amounts to nothing at all... and I think that is as good a place as any to end this
July 24 at 6:40am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy 'Manifesting' as 'such' what could possibly be manifest? Manifestation doesn't exist as such.
July 24 at 6:48am · Like
Justin Struble "Not because there is NO seeing/hearing/sensing, but because the seeing/hearing/sensing is utterly, entirely, totally *insignificant*. For all practical intents and purposes it is non-ARISING* ( free from extremes of existence / non-existence ), though is does go on (which is yet again saying too much)."
yes i think to formulate things in terms of foreground / manifestations / sensations is to lean slightly towards emphasizing anatta while not quite emphasizing emptiness of phenomena clearly enough. so it's like a slightly distorted version of two-fold emptiness.
and while i don't think those describing things in that way necessarily hold inherent views in terms of sensations / manifestation / foreground, it could easily be misunderstood that way.
the same is true when utilizing "transience". transience, whether coarse or subtle, implies a duality, in that it implies that there is an ACTUAL multiplicity of phenomena / sensations, and that is based on some sense of duality and thus inherent view(s).
from one perspective subtle "transience" ie; disjointedness is a useful way to describe the primordial freedom of emptiness / dependent origination, totally unhindered, unobstructed, not locked into any sort of determinism or substantialism.
but on the other hand transience under any normal interpretation implies phenomena which actually arise, abide, and cease. which again is based on views of multiplicity, duality, etc...
if we want to use transience as a skillful means maybe we could balance it with the quality of seamlessness ... which is like another way of describing signlessness. the dharmadhatu is like a seamless expanse / wholeness.. and it doesn't make sense to describe it in terms of a multiplicity of individual parts / phenomena.
July 24 at 6:51am · Edited · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland The phantasmagoria, David. As far as I can make out, from the "no awareness apart from manifestation" there is still boatloads of imputation upon the phantasmagoria. For example as distinguished streams of sense (that's a major one), and more as Justin pointed out
July 24 at 6:53am · Edited · Like
David Vardy Jump in the stream and the current is seen to be what seeing is. It's not passive at all. There's no sitting on the banks and watching it go by. Peace is found 'as' the flow, not apart from it; as time, not 'in' the concept of timelessness. Nothing is seen in seeing and as such nothing arises, becomes anything.
July 24 at 6:56am · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Justin, I tried to clarify "non-arising" as "gaplessness" (i.e. seamlessness) on another thread. Got no likes
July 24 at 6:59am · Like · 1
Justin Struble
July 24 at 6:59am · Like
David Vardy "f we want to use transience as a skillful means maybe we could balance it with the quality of seamlessness ... which is like another way of describing signlessness. the dharmadhatu is like a seamless expanse / wholeness.. and it doesn't make sense to describe it in terms of a multiplicity of individual parts / phenomena." The scenes change and the characters are not named to protect the innocent.....lol
July 24 at 7:00am · Like
Justin Struble haha
July 24 at 7:00am · Like
David Vardy Yeah. Disjoint / gaplessness.....tough bedfellows, or maybe just a very tight bed.
July 24 at 7:02am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David, I really dig and I get that. Going into dharma, for me there was already a big momentum towards precisely that expression of freedom, i.e. "peace 'as' the flow". Now, it seems distinct from, and honestly less complete than, "the clear light".
July 24 at 7:02am · Edited · Like
David Vardy Clear light is definitely 'awe inspiring'.
July 24 at 7:03am · Like
Justin Struble all we can really do is try and point experientially. language and description will always fall short, map != territory. can't fully capture the inconceivable with limited concepts / language.
July 24 at 7:04am · Like
David Vardy In the absence of flow, luminosity appears to go unnoticed. It's like the circuit is closed and the light isn't on.
July 24 at 7:06am · Like
David Vardy Nor is there the experience of surge, as if thought is a surge protector.
July 24 at 7:07am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland See, I would only describe it as "awe inspiring" if I saw it as substantial and precious, which is what most want from 'awareness'.
The completeness I mean to convey is total renunciation. It's a lack, a losing of everything, impossible to keep. Nothing left, and by that I mean nothing left by which to hold on, grasp, cling, sustain, etc. It's a totally bad deal; nothing to gain, everything to lose.
One can't even be said to know it—no attainment.
July 24 at 7:10am · Edited · Like
David Vardy It leaves imagination kind of at a cliff's edge. Thought stops there knowing it's inconceivable. There's little room for imagination when what's going on appears as packed as it is.
July 24 at 7:28am · Like
David Vardy Stian Gudmundsen Høiland "I tried to clarify "non-arising" as "gaplessness" (i.e. seamlessness) on another thread." Are you suggesting that because of seamlessness objects cannot be complete enitites, lacking inherency?
July 24 at 7:35am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Amongst its meanings, non-arising denotes the lack of actual delimitation of objects and events, essentially their not having a point-instant* of arising, then a continuum of point-instances of staying, then a point-instant of cessation. This was discussed in this thread as "transience".
Gaplessness takes away the structure of this kind of imputation, by making the same point—no dividing lines or gaps.
Intuitively this might lead one toward the 'non-differentiating wisdom' that Justin mentioned earlier.
* point-instant: a unit comprising a unified measurement of space (point) and of time (instant).
July 24 at 8:04am · Edited · Like
Justin Struble seeing phenomena as entities / objects is analogous to believing that your reflection in a mirror is actually a solid, substantial object of it's own.
in actuality there is no object there, just an appearance. and that appearance never actually arises, abides, or ceases, because it never actually existed in the first place.
July 24 at 7:43am · Like
David Vardy Yes of course. I was trying to understand what he meant by non-arising and gaplessness. What are you referring to as gaplessness. Btw. gotta go for now.
July 24 at 7:46am · Like
Justin Struble when all imputation and compounding ceases, and the Dharmadhatu is revealed as two-fold emptiness, experience is of a whole other order. not only does compounding of a self collapse, but the projection of 3-dimensional space with objects / phenomena "out there" also collapses, into a zero or hyper-dimensional sort of wholeness.
In otherwords "manifestation" as "foreground" collapses. yet this wholeness is not static or fixed, it is alive with the dynamic power of compassion.
there are many ways to describe the appearance of dynamic movement without proposing individual, discrete, entities / objects in order to illustrate it. one common analogy is waves & water. another is einstein's space-time manifold, and there are many more.
i just think whenever we formulate these things in terms of description which use a multiplicity of objects / phenomena / sensations etc, we necessarily introduce distortion. that doesn't mean they can't be used skillfully as skillful means though.
July 24 at 7:55am · Edited · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Dude, yes. So why is there an apparent rift in the community here?
July 24 at 7:58am · Like
Justin Struble *shrug*
July 24 at 7:59am · Like
Justin Struble most education systems ( and especially western education ) very thoroughly condition people to think of and analyze the world in terms of discrete units. atoms, molecules, units of measure, etc etc. most of our science is based on this approach of trying to dissect reality and reduce it to it's basic "parts".
this same sort of approach gets applied quite a lot in the dharma, and it can be quite beneficial and skillful up to a point, but it breaks down as a useful model once we approach teachings and experience of non-duality.
July 24 at 8:03am · Edited · Like
Justin Struble additionally, the english language is based around and structured according to the same mindset and method, so it is further entrenched in the very structure of our language.
one scientist ( the physicist david bohm ) found this to be such an impediment for describing certain higher order concepts in physics that he created a whole different mode of language he called the "rheomode" for describing certain aspects of his theories in physics, in his book "wholeness and the implicate order".
July 24 at 8:07am · Like
Justin Struble http://www.biroz.net/words/irsonos.htm
Irsonos : Towards A Quantum Language Of Non-Differentiation
www.biroz.net
Irsonos : Towards A Quantum Language Of Non-Differentiation
July 24 at 8:11am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Justin Struble So, what I'm getting at in summary is we are using a language that is based on, and has in it's very structure the process of differentiation. As long as we use english conventionally, it will contain these implicit aspects of differentiating. And as long as that is happening, we may think the language others are using is implying certain types of discriminations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83j%C3%B1%C4%81
We have essentially enthroned the skandha of descrimination in the structure of our language, which makes it even more difficult to renounce. lol And that leads to all sorts of endless misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and especially, difficulty in discussing that which is undifferentiated.
The Dharmadhatu is undifferentiated, signless, seamless, etc.. and this makes conventional english quite unsuitable for describing it.
Sa?jña - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sa?jña (Sanskrit; Pali: sañña) is a Buddhist term that is typically translated a... See More
July 24 at 8:23am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
John Tan Hi Mr. J.C., "Kyle Dixon - for me, what you just wrote is the key difference in suffering vs not suffering." Why is it the "key"?
July 24 at 8:53am · Like
Mr. J.C. Sometimes I can be in any mind state and there is no suffering.
At other times, if the tendency toward mental chatter is strong AND there is an assumption of solidity or connection between moments, then there can be a subject that becomes stuck and cannot see itself.
When the field of experience is utterly transient and slippery, there is no place for the subject to land so there is no suffering.
July 24 at 9:01am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. When I've been practicing consistently the mind gets sharper and is able to notice the start of clinging and just lets it go.
But inevitability the mind gets lazy because there is no problem and eventually lapses back into clinging.
Part of this is a conscious choice because I find I can emotionally connect with others better when I allow a bit of suffering.
July 24 at 9:07am · Like · 1
John Tan Ic…Thanks for the explanation, Justin.
I asked because in the past, u mentioned about the experience of non-dual awareness and u r focusing on that but what u said now is related more to a taste of “freedom” that arises from the realization of a lack of linking essence.
These 2 realization -- “the magic of clarity” and “unbinding”, very often require 2 separate pointing, that is, the direct pointing of one’s clarity (????) and the further pointing out that even this clarity is empty and ungraspable(?????.)
The former is a taste of a leap from a mechanical process mind intellect into the unmade pristineness.
The later is a breaking loose, a release, a let go of its own nature into the moment of natural condition due to the realization that the need of a linking essence is unnecessary.
If possible I would like to hear from you how u understand them, is the teaching of “unbinding” aim to affirm the unmade clarity, how they are related (or are they) and how does the 2 relate to suffering?
July 24 at 10:01am · Unlike · 2
David Vardy It's essentially a spiritual Catch-22......lol
July 24 at 10:10am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Thank you for your ideas John Tan. Your description sounds similar to how my path has progressed.
At first, I received pointing out of "Awareness" and there was enormous bliss, clarity, and brightness. There was a shift in identify from the old "I am the thinker" to "I am Awareness". This was okay most of the time, but then there would be some terrible suffering as there was seeking to identify as Awareness 24/7. Any time the experience of "Awareness" wasn't perfect, there was suffering.
Later, around the time I had anatta realization, there was a realization that this "linking essence" was exactly correlated with suffering. When the "linking essence" or "self-that-connects-moments" was not there, there was no suffering.
July 24 at 10:24am · Unlike · 2
Mr. J.C. Later, I decided that even suffering was okay, so having an experience of continuity was okay. I let this go for quite a while and then eventually it became NOT okay so I started practicing again to clear it up.
July 24 at 10:25am · Unlike · 2
Mr. J.C. So, yes, I agree that "magic of clarity" and "unbinding" do seem to be two separate phases.
July 24 at 10:26am · Unlike · 2
Mr. J.C. By the way, your teaching via Soh's blog was very important in showing me that I was stuck in "I am Awareness". I am very grateful for that. Thank you.
July 24 at 10:28am · Unlike · 2
John Tan Hi Mr. J.C.,
Don’t say that...I am merely blahing…really.......just some casual sharing…
To me,
A shift from conceptuality to non-conceptuality is not freedom.
A shift from appearance to clarity/awareness is not freedom.
A shift from the conditioned to the unconditioned is not freedom.
It is simply a movement from one extreme to another extreme, they came from the same cause that “blinds and binds”.
The “lack of linking essence” however is a precious insight and provides the foundation that led to a further refinement of one’s understanding of empty and non-arising wisdom that allows one to release from oscillating both poles.
Taking the attempt to sustain Awareness 24/7 for example,
The wisdom that releases is not to sustain or affirm an Awareness in the 3 states.
In sleeping, it is not to maintain the light of awareness in sleep but rather to release one from the grasping tendencies so that one relaxes into the natural condition of “sleeping” -- in sleeping, sleep.
In dreaming, it is not to maintain the light of awareness in dreams but rather to release one from the grasping tendencies into the natural condition of “dreams”, so the grasping tendencies isn’t present in dreams.
Let unbinding be unbinding. One does not unbind so as to affirm clarity; if we hold on too tightly to clarity, we may not be able to fully appreciate and intuit the quintessence of unbinding wisdom. The wisdom of unbinding releases one to the natural state of what is, be it clarity or appearance, be it waking, dreaming or sleeping.
July 24 at 11:17am · Edited · Unlike · 6
David Vardy Non-volitional living isn't a means to an end. It's the Way.
July 24 at 11:50am · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle What is meant by not linking experiences? I think I have an idea from your post above but I am probably wrong
In the simplest English please I am quite a dummy
July 24 at 11:52am · Edited · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle Of course, you don't Have to explain at all, so I'm very greatful for whatever answer I get if any
July 24 at 12:02pm · Like
Mr. J.C. I've never heard anyone say this before. This is fantastic: "In sleeping, it is not to maintain the light of awareness in sleep but rather to release one from the grasping tendencies so that one relaxes into the natural condition of “sleeping” -- in sleeping, sleep."
July 24 at 12:02pm · Like · 2
Justin Struble it is impossible to "maintain" clear light ... clear light is the natural condition always, and is naturally, spontaneously present, whether awake, sleeping, or dreaming, and is recognized so long as ignorance / grasping is not obscuring it. so, clear light of awareness is spontaneously present as the natural condition of sleep always, and with stability in the view that is not defiled by ignorance and grasping, is recognized throughout sleep as well.*
July 24 at 12:05pm · Edited · Like
David Vardy Release of the grasping tendency is behind all realization at whatever stage. We are drawn back to the insights in spite of our tendency to grasp. It becomes a vicious circle, amplified seeking in the absence of relaxation.
July 24 at 12:08pm · Like
Mr. J.C. Stuffs RedTurtle - Is there a feeling of continuity from one moment to the next? Does it feel like there is a "glue" that is holding it all together? Is the idea of that glue becoming unbound absolutely terrifying in the sense that reality may just fall apart without that glue?
This is maybe not the best description, but its an attempt.
July 24 at 12:10pm · Edited · Like · 2
Justin Struble our habitual tendencies, & ignorance, grasping, aversion, etc.. are acted out in dreaming, and even deep sleep as well, deep sleep can be obscured by very deep ignorance / unknowing / aversion just as waking and dreaming can.
July 24 at 12:11pm · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Yes.. Doing that noting practice gets frightening. I can't find myself in any of the noted aggregates.. But there is still a sense of me.. But when I start to analyze where I might be in immediate experience, and find no self in thoughts perception sight sound etc.. I feel terror
The only thing that I still have a very strong sense of me ( when doing noting or "these are not self" in is the background perceiver..
I am afraid to touch that in honesty
July 24 at 12:16pm · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle While not engaged in that practice just feel like a regular person though
July 24 at 12:17pm · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle Thank you justin
July 24 at 12:23pm · Like
Mr. J.C. "The only thing that I still have a very strong sense of me ( when doing noting or "these are not self" in is the background perceiver..
I am afraid to touch that in honesty"
Absolutely. It feels like if you go there you may die, right?
July 24 at 12:24pm · Like · 2
Stuffs RedTurtle Yes!! The terror is bad!!!
July 24 at 12:25pm · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. So, the OP is two techniques that I use to make that perceiver disappear. The reality pixels is very gentle and unscary and basically distracts to the point that you don't notice that the perceiver isn't there.
Clear seeing is having absolute willingness to look clearly at whatever is there, even if it may kill you. There are times when I've been unable to face the terror, and other times, when my concentration is good that I was ready to face whatever consequences to know the truth.
July 24 at 12:26pm · Like · 2
Soh Justin Struble:
Emphasizing only on 'undifferentiated' and negating 'multiplicity' can prevent one from looking deeply into anatta and D.O., as well as what Mahamudra calls "one taste", especially greater one taste.
For example in the Mahamudra teachings, although certain insights into emptiness and non-arising has already arisen in the Yoga of Simplicity, it is not only until the Yoga of One Taste that these realizations manifest:
(Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal)
"One Taste also has three stages. The lesser One Taste is when you have realized that all thoughts and perceptions are of one taste in being the Mahamudra of mind essence. However, you still retain a bind: the conviction of savoring and clinging to that.
The medium One Taste is when this tarnish has dissolved: the conviction of savoring and clinging to multiplicity as being one taste. You have actualized the resplendent indivisibility of perceptions and mind in which the perceived is not held as being outside and mind is not held as being inside.
The greater One Taste is when you realize multiplicity as being of one taste and you experience one taste as being multiplicity. Thus, everything subsides into the original state of equality.
...
Here are the distinctions as to whether or not perfection in One Taste has been reached:
You have seen the essence of One Taste if, free from accepting or rejecting, confirming or denying anything perceived, you have recognized the original state of equality as an objectless natural awareness. You have not seen the essence if you still cling to the conviction that savors this equality in terms of something to be mingled and a mingling with it.
You have perfected the strength of One Taste if whatever you encountered as the expression of this original state of equality. ***You have not perfected its strength if one taste isn't experienced as multiplicity because of retaining the bind of a remedy.***
Your thoughts have become meditation if all dualistic clinging, including mind and the perceived, etc. has dissolved. Hence -- free from the sense of being bound or released in the six types of impressions -- it is all right to let whatever appears appear. They have not become meditation if you need to liberate the impressions with a reminder to recognized.
The qualities have arisen if, after mingling mind and perceptions, you have attained miraculous powers, such as being able to conjure and multiply. The qualities have not arisen if the signs fail to appear due to the inducing circumstances of the path being feeble.
You have planted the seed of the form-bodies if all-embracing compassion occurs effortlessly and the treasure-mine of benefitting others has opened. You have not planted this if the power of means, such as compassion, is weak and if you do not accomplish the benefit of others.
***You will attain mastery over the relative state if you have become skilled in causation. This means you can separate samsara and nirvana by experiencing the immediacy of awareness because of clearly realizing the dependent connection between causes and effects. You have not attained this mastery if you do not experience one taste as being the causation of multiplicity.***"
I think the last paragraph is especially important.
In "Mahamudra: the Moonlight" by the same author, he explains:
"The meditator has gained perfect insight into apparent reality if he knows how to differentiate samsara and nirvana in a single momentary vision of awareness and is certain of the efficacy of karma. He has gained this insight by cognizing emptiness, [the intrinsic nature of all things,] as the basis of dynamic cause and effect and by understanding clearly their interrrelationship and interaction. He has not gained such perfect insight into apparent reality if he has not realized emptiness through the interaction of diverse causes and effects."
This is why as Thusness and I have often said, one must realize non-arising from Dependent Origination and not solely through looking at it from 'emptiness'. Also, Loppon Malcolm have also rightly pointed out, emptiness not understood from dependent origination is not the Buddhist sort of emptiness. By looking into D.O., one will progress in one taste and will start to experience Maha and total exertion.
In my experience, the realization of anatta was important to bring about the collapse of Single Oneness (the undifferentiated field of One Mind) into direct taste of diverse forms: "The great level of one flavor is reached when the meditator realizes how the awareness of one flavor manifests itself in diverse forms and how these appearances and existences are of one flavor in primordial evenness. Prior to this the meditator realized the one flavor of all the diverse things."
Then looking into D.O. becomes very important. Of course, by diverse form we do not mean anything truly existing... just the diverse illusory appearance with a single taste.
Related: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../putting-aside...
Awakening to Reality: Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold Emptiness
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
July 24 at 4:08pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Soh I think it is important to understand the context of what John Tan is saying, i.e. why is he telling us to separate Presence and the 2 Fold Emptiness?
This is important because if we do not separate them, then emptiness becomes a form of affirming negation. It becomes no different from the Advaita's neti neti technique of dissociating from phenomena to realize the substrate of Pure Consciousness. It is using negation to affirm Awareness.
Emptiness is not like that. Emptiness of inherent existence applies to every phenomena, to self, and also to Awareness. By realizing the emptiness of inherent existence in all these, Self, Awareness, Phenomena are released. There is not a denial of Awareness but a release from reifying and clinging to Awareness. It is a non-affirming negation.
This is why we must let unbinding be unbinding, let clarity be clarity. Experience both, then unbind clarity.
July 24 at 5:31pm · Edited · Like · 3
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Further on in Clarifying the Natural State, regarding the next stage of practice and realization called Nonmeditation, we find passages like:
"Greater Nonmeditation is when even this subtle dualistic consciousness transforms into original wakefulness, yeshe. Everything is simply an overarching state of original wakefulness."
"You have perfected the strength of Nonmeditation if the subtlest dualistic perception has dissolved and you have brought all phenomena to the state of exhaustion, so you are always indivisible from original wakefulness. You have not perfected its strength if you experience even the slightest dualistic perception and you have not exhausted the phenomena of knowable objects."
"Your thoughts have become meditation if every instance of all-ground consciousness, without being rejected, has dissolved into being dharmadhatu wisdom." (This pertains to the non-differentiating wisdom mentioned earlier.)
"At the time of medium Nonmeditation, even this most subtle dualistic perception, which is like a magical illusion, dissolves and you become uninterrupted in the state of nonmeditation throughout day and night." (This pertains to the clear light permeating the three states.)
"At the time of greater Nonmeditation, this extremely subtle trait of thoughtless nonrecognition dissolves into original wakefulness so that the mother and child luminosities intermingle. Everything is now the all-encompassing expanse of original wakefulness so that—for the benefit of yourself—you attain dharmakaya in completeness."
"Generally speaking, a state of nonmeditation that is the mere absence of meditator, meditation object and the act of meditating also occurs during Simplicity. During One Taste there is also a state of nonmeditation that is merely to experience the freshness of thought and perceptions followed by a going beyond meditative composure and postmeditation. These are not the real state of Nonmeditation, but rather the meditation-mood of nonmeditation."
"Thus, bring yourself to the level of exhaustion of concepts and phenomena."
*
As far as I gather, Dzogchen-as-praxis is primarily concerned with this last of the four yogas of Mahamudra called Nonmeditation (but implements gradations of the path and corresponding techniques that are similar and sometimes overlapping.)
July 24 at 9:42pm · Edited · Like · 1
Piotr Ludwinski No, it isn't.
July 24 at 9:39pm · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Soh said:
> This is why we must let unbinding be unbinding, let clarity be clarity. Experience both, then unbind clarity.
If you flip the order here (which seems to be the initial intention), this is an interesting correspondence to the four yogas of Mahamudra, where the first one is (in some treatments) basically samatha, the second is vipassana, the third is the unification of those two. Then there's the fourth.
July 24 at 9:42pm · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Soh wrote:
> In my experience, the realization of anatta was important to bring about the collapse of Single Oneness (the undifferentiated field of One Mind) into direct taste of diverse forms
This "Single Oneness", in terms of the four yogas scheme, sounds to me not like the stage that emphasizes "original wakefulness" as non-differentiated reality (the forth called Nonmeditation), but the stage called One-Pointedness: the first stage.
The first stage is sometimes presented as 'stillness'. The second as 'movement'. The third as the integration of both stillness and movement. Then there's the fourth.
July 24 at 9:50pm · Edited · Like
Piotr Ludwinski Four yogas merely adress progress on the path i.e. exhaustion of cognitive and emotional obscurations (coarse ans subtle) from practicioner's side. In both dzogchen and mahamudra basis is moment of unconditioned clarity (tib. shes pa skad gcig ma). The difference lies in path... In mahamudra it's two stages which are means to eliminate twin obscurations. In dzogchen actual path is thodgal. Progress on path that mahamudra fourth yoga denote in terms of dzogchen is encountered by those whose thodgal practice is fourth vision.
July 24 at 10:12pm · Edited · Like
Justin Struble Great Posts, Soh, and Stian. Thanks!
July 24 at 11:45pm · Edited · Like · 2
Soh Stian, there are so many Dzogchen masters that reiterated one taste with statements such as,
"It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor." -- Padmasambhava
Shabkar, and many others, made basically the same statements. It's almost like a textbook stock phrase in Dzogchen as well as Mahamudra.
July 25 at 12:33am · Edited · Like
David Vardy "It is not created as......." seems like an odd way of expressing that.
July 25 at 12:59am · Like
Soh Malcolm: "Are all phenomena "one" in that they are all empty? Of course. Is there some existent underlying fabric that unifies all phenomena? Not in Buddhadharma. In Hinduism of various stripes, definitely, but not Buddhadharma."
"Is this pure consciousness single or multiple? If it is the former, it is susceptible to all of the faults of Advaita. Also things are luminously clear, so why restrict this to mind?"
"Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions."
"I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap.
Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light."
Enochian asked: "In the finality of Dzogchen, one sees the 5 wisdoms lights everywhere. Everything is the five lights, which are recognized as oneself.
How is this not monism?"
Malcolm replied: "There are five lights, not one, correct? Plus one knows the minds of others correct? So how can this be monism?"
July 25 at 3:55am · Edited · Like · 2
David Vardy I would change the Padmasamhava quote to....There isn't a single entity even though there is a single flavor present and clear in terms of many. There appears to be a multiplicity of things, but they are inseparable and of a single flavor.
July 25 at 4:04am · Unlike · 1
Mr. J.C. Soh - what do you mean by "then unbind clarity"?
July 25 at 6:17am · Like
Soh For example, having an image of clarity as something always so inherently and changelessly -- so that one tries to abide in that 24/7 through returning again and again to the captured image of awareness. That is caging clarity, and prevents release into the 'natural state' of whatever is when condition is. Some people may try to sustain a state of witnessing throughout sleep, which is not releasing into the natural state and having deep attachment to a particular face of clarity seen to be inherent, so one wants to hold on to it and wants to 'be' that particular state all the time. This causes insomnia as a lot of energy is tied up in holding onto a deemed purest state of clarity due to attachment. One tries to transcend the three states (or 'be the transcedent turiya beyond all states') rather than let each condition be, or be each condition, or allow it to reveal its true face and nature.
Unbind clarity means release the caging or fixating of clarity into something. Fixating on a particular face of clarity. As I said years ago after a meditation, "Every moment is an encounter of my thousand faces. The sound of thunder, every drop of rain, every heart beat, every breath, every thought. Experience, experience, experience, experience!" -- https://www.facebook.com/notes/soh-wei-yu/a-thousand-faces/10152352904760226 . The same goes to sleeping, dying, etc. Thusness also said to Goose recently: "Empty clarity has a thousand faces, every face is brilliance and new."
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:51pm UTC+08
Don't cage mind's clarity into anything...after ur insights, mature by tasting it.
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:52pm UTC+08
Fully empty in both background and foreground. Self sprung appearance is lucid and empty.
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:54pm UTC+08
It is just one great open spaciousness of empty evanescence appearances.
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:54pm UTC+08
Holographic voidness
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:58pm UTC+08
If self sprung appearance is natural and liberating but lack a reverence and compassionate heart, then u must practice metta.
....
April '14
Taste the Breadth and Depth of Empty Clarity
Thusness wrote to me:
Taste the breadth and depth of empty clarity
Free this immediate experience from all definitions;
Free this immediate experience from all boundaries;
Free this immediate experience from all inherent solidity;
Without the ghost image of a backdrop and absence of essence in the foreground, then whatever arises is free and liberating.
Spontaneous and naturally perfected.
You can only recognize the taste, never fixate any idea or image of instant presence
A Thousand Faces
Every moment is an encounter of my thousand faces. The sound of thunder, every d... See More
By: Soh
July 25 at 6:44am · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
July 10 at 1:40pm · Bozeman, MT, United States
I use two techniques for dealing with painful clinging - non-arising clear seeing and "reality pixels".
With non-arising clear seeing, there is a recognition that there is clinging or making substantial some mental fixation that is causing pain. Then the mind will attempt to objectify the entire field of experience, noticing particularly any solidity or subject. As that solidity is felt it is remembered that everything is non-arising so the solidity is no longer allowed to be established.
With "reality pixels", the attention takes in the entire field of experience as if it were millions of micro-experiences occurring in parallel. The whole field is scintillating with no connection between pixels nor any vantage that they are observed from. This method works especially well if all experiences are remembered to be complete in themselves - there is nothing that is being missed and no subject to be eradicated.
I hope someone finds this useful.
UnlikeUnlike ·
You, John Tan, Joel Agee, Wha Tsin Aname and 8 others like this.
Apollo Lee Adama Trekchöd and Thogal?
July 10 at 4:33pm · Like
Wha Tsin Aname Very interesting.
Could you please elaborate on the pixelization "process" itself? No doubt that 'pixel-like' is the true subatomic nature of all "things", but the human eye of course is not equipped to detect it.
Also, are all mental movements seen as another pixel as well, or does the un-substantiating of mental fixation preclude the pixelization of mental factors?
Thanks!
July 11 at 2:18am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Apollo Lee Adama - I don't know anything about Trekchöd and Thogal
July 11 at 3:50am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Interesting. What is your "background"? Zen?
July 11 at 3:52am · Like
Mr. J.C. Wha Tsin Aname - The human eye can actually detect it very easily. Go into a dark room and stare at a shadow on the wall. If you pay attention, it is quickly apparent that it is not a solid shadow, but rather a scintillating field of changingness. As you get used to that you can see it even in brightly lit rooms, especially when you look at "solid" colored things.
And yes, mental movements are seen as scintillating simultaneous experiences as well.
July 11 at 3:52am · Like · 3
Mr. J.C. Apollo Lee Adama - Mostly noting style vipassana with some non-dual'ish "be aware of awareness itself" type stuff. Pretty much Kenneth Folk's 3 speed transmission.
July 11 at 3:54am · Like · 1
Apollo Lee Adama Well done, then. You rediscovered the two core Dzogchen non-meditations
July 11 at 3:56am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Which is which?
July 11 at 3:57am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama The first reminds of Trekchöd, the second of Thogal.
July 11 at 3:59am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Let's keep the Tregcho and thogal discussion to a minimum folks... This isn't Jax's den of iniquity.
July 11 at 4:00am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Awesome, my ego is super stoked at this connection ;-P
July 11 at 4:00am · Like · 1
Apollo Lee Adama Damn, it's not working, ey ;D
July 11 at 6:13am · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle, what?
Are we not allowed to discuss the two techniques that Justin is sharing? Or are we not allowed to call them certain names? Is trekchod and thodgal off-limits? What does Jackson's personal interests have to do with any of that?
Can you have another look at the context in which your warning appeared? It seems to me a hypersensitive reaction. Why this policing?
July 11 at 2:56pm · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Discuss Justin's techniques all you want.
But man ngag teachings have never been discussed in depth in this group apart from vaguely touching on their principles (in the rare occurrence that topic came up).
And yes this is not a platform for discussing those teachings. They are not the type of thing you talk freely about in a public forum.
Jackson was mentioned because he has groups on facebook dedicated to those practices, which is a travesty in my not so humble opinion.
My reaction is no more hypersensitive than your own knee-jerk reaction which prompted your reply just now. I could also ask you, why the policing... but police all you like.
Either way, upadesavarga sadhanas have never been discussed here, so I'm not sure why it is a surprise now.
July 11 at 3:09pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4
Play Video
Sound of da police
KRS-one sound of da police
July 11 at 3:32pm · Like · Remove Preview
Apollo Lee Adama Kyle, are you an admin here? If not, your personal opinion is none of my business. If you are, it's of course up to you to set the rules here, but it would be fair to update the group's description to make clear that certain topics are no-go. I agree that your opinion is "not so humble". LOL
July 11 at 4:13pm · Edited · Like
Wha Tsin Aname I took your comment as mere facetiousness.
The context is humor, brought to you in part by Jax.
I'm sure these discussions, when isolated to threads whos participants are capable, provide no real threat.
Most peeps who just glance 'upadesavarga'...turn and run. Not for the uninitiated.
July 11 at 4:18pm · Edited · Like · 1
Soh Kyle is an admin.
July 11 at 4:34pm · Like · 2
Apollo Lee Adama In that case, it should IMO be made clear in the group's description that some Dharma topics are not allowed. Very interesting to learn that Peterson is such a hot issue here, in any case.
July 11 at 4:45pm · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon If you've had transmission for those practices it should go without saying that they are not topics of open conversation in the presence of any variety of individuals who may not even know what Atiyoga is. They are not to be broadcasted, are not fodder for speculative bouts of analysis or casual, comparative, conceptual explorations. They are not games to be played with or recreational pastimes to kiss and tell of.
Judging by the surprised tone in your response you most likely do not understand that it should go without saying that those practices are profoundly secret... and therefore I won't expect you to understand why I object. I cannot fault you for your poverty in that respect. You are merely working with what you have been given, which is a view that apparently lacks the fundamentals associated with the practices in question. Meaning the fact that you are surprised that discussing these sadhanas is not on the menu, says something about the nature of the transmissions you were given, if you received any at all.
You do not need to fear a lion, but if you are going to work closely with an animal of that nature you should know that animal and respect that animal. Otherwise that encounter will undoubtably be short lived. If you have had transmission for these practices then you are already in the cage with the lion, or are in the lion's den itself. Except you appear to be exhibiting the type of conduct one would display in the presence of a house cat or a kitten. The upadesavarga is not the cat's meow my friend, it is the lion's roar... take heed.
July 11 at 5:50pm · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Sounds like the typical religious hocus-pocus to me. Many people - like Keith Dowman, for example - are now clearing the Dharma from the accreted cultural and religious crud. Makes perfect sense to me.
July 11 at 5:54pm · Like · 1
Apollo Lee Adama I am not surprised, by the way. I know that people like Dowman and Jackson are under fire from the traditionalists.
July 11 at 5:55pm · Like
Kyle Dixon On the contrary, I have received man ngag sde instruction from Keith Dowman, and he was very careful and mindful of respecting that animal. To the point that when he realized there were a few individuals in the group who had not even received the rig pa'i rtsal dbang, he immediately became uneasy and said "I cannot be doing this, there are guardians over these teachings" and ended the teaching early. Good for him.
So don't tell me Keith Dowman is "clearing the dharma from the accreted cultural and religious crud", that is patently false.
July 11 at 6:01pm · Like
Kyle Dixon Dowman isn't under fire, and Jackson teaches Neo-Advaita in Dzogchen drag... trust me the "traditionalists" could care less what that man does in his little bubble. Seeds don't sprout in infertile soil.
July 11 at 6:05pm · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama From Dowman's introduction to his book Spaciousness: "In it we are assured that over and above all the yogas and dhyanas of Hindustan, all the ritual and magic of Tibet and all the commercialized quasi-religious new-age therapies of the West there exists a simple, timeless manner of being, of easy access, requiring no onerous technique or renunciate lifestyle, that can give us a constant modicum of satisfaction in this vale of laughter and tears between birth and dying." That is also my conviction. Feel free to disagree, Kyle. I'll leave it at that.
July 11 at 6:09pm · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon That is merely saying that your nature is free of anything associated with the mind, such as cultural constructs and so on. This type of rhetoric is quite normal when these teachings are discussing one's primordial nature.
However it is not negating cultural constructs in their conventional application. Which is what you are unfortunately misinterpreting it as doing.
July 11 at 6:14pm · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. I've seen this all before in the martial arts world. The techniques came from the east with a certain cultural context that was lost as it moved to the west. Many techniques are kept secret because no one can understand them without the correct instruction and attitude.
And, I must admit, the vast majority of practitioners do indeed lack the mindset to apply these secret techniques, because they require vulnerability, lightness, and timing as opposed to strength and athleticism.
So, in this way, the masters were right.
However, one development has blown all of this out of the water - the adaptation of Japanese jiu jitsu by the Brazilians. This adapted system is a cultural shift that throws away all taboos and hierarchy in favor of pragmatism. If you can tap out black belts over and over again with your technique, then you are probably worthy of a black belt.
July 12 at 1:59am · Like · 3
Mr. J.C. Now, why does this matter with respect to secret teachings? Because the massive amount of experimentation that goes on in the unhierarchical system of Brazilian jiu-jitsu allows the adepts to rediscover those hidden teachings and use them incredibly effectively. It is the wisdom of the crowds sub summing the wisdom of the master. The proof that this approach works is that every UFC fight you see involves some amount of Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
July 12 at 2:03am · Like
Mr. J.C. Ive seen this transition in my life time and I have no doubt that it is coming to dharma.
July 12 at 2:04am · Like · 3
Apollo Lee Adama Amazon is full of texts that were highly secret a couple of decades ago, and IMO that is a Good Thing. Imagine science adopting an attitude "No, we won't teach you evolution, that's a secret practice. Stay with Lamarckism". LOL
July 12 at 2:06am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. As I said the vast majority of practitioners lack the mind set to use these secret techniques, but out of the woodwork emerges some people who can. Here are some examples - the common thing to look for is how effortless it is for the victor.
It is not just that they have great technique but they are controlling their opponents mind - like a magician, altering the inevitable losers perception so that they always move into the victors trap.
http://youtu.be/UUyFTCTFW7E
Play Video
Professor Sauer rolling with one of his brown belts
Rolling after class with one of his brown belts.
July 12 at 2:42am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Mr. J.C. One should understand mind control as a very dangerous thing and should only be taught to those who have proven to be virtuous. This is a perfectly logical position.
However what happens in practice is that this mind control, to be applied, requires an egoless stance to be functional and only maybe 1/20 of people have the capability to pull it off.
July 12 at 2:21am · Like
Zijazo Smith Meh. IMHO, if people are insightful enough to discover these kinds of techniques on their own via simply "knowing themselves" and various principles of reality (I actually discovered these exact techniques myself over the past week or so, along with the ability to "hallucinate freely" / control my own trance states... but no more needs to be said about that for now), then hopefully there is some community (the sangha) that is actually responsible enough to help practitioners along in such endeavors; or would one rather we undertake these things with absolutely no supervision? Now, I have my own guru and all but sometimes it's more helpful to discuss these matters with other Dharma friends-- isn't it? (And alleviating, no less?)
If we wanted, there could be a closed group dedicated to certain innermost secret practices so that the naive don't go annihilating their own nervous systems (which I understand, Kyle, is or has to be at least part of your concern)... but since some of us simply don't have access to centers with enough practitioners for some to be advanced enough to relate with about these techniques, simply by dint of geography, I think tossing out the opportunity for well-moderated discussion is the actual travesty. What I&I sight as the real "travesty" of Jax's groups is that he kind of clings the formless and makes things excessively rhetorical without giving enough guidance about the psychological and psychic nature of those practices. So it's very possible that people won't get the tools and instructions they need to actually perform certain mental feats PROPERLY. And that is not something we have to (or should) take as an example.
In any case, Dzogchen is the birthright of "sentient beings." Not saying that everyone is prepared to take up real in that way-- I'm sure something like 90% of practitioners (Americans especially) aren't. However, if some of us safely end up in those heights (having supervision of some sort) and are earnest in wishing to clarify our now immensely heightened awareness, so then to establish ourselves more or less permanently in rigpa, I see no problem.
July 12 at 2:26am · Like
Mr. J.C. Here's a practice that will fuck you up - pay close attention to the *previous* moment's experience.
It will totally screw up your body's energy, potentially to the point where you have kriyas that you can't stop for days. I did it and I wouldn't recommend it.
Is there some insight to be gained from it? Maybe.
There, I just explained something that may be a bad idea, but I shared my experience in a way that reduces harm.
Why share it in the first place? Because perhaps someone will pipe up and say "actually, I've done that practice a lot And here's what I've learned about it."
July 12 at 2:31am · Like
Mr. J.C. There was a period on KFD where a few people were experimenting with Tummo practice and I thought it was done in a very pragmatic way - everyone was sharing notes on how it was affecting them. A couple of people noticed it was making them more aggressive and backed off. One of the practitioners ended going through a depersonalization phase that he concluded as unhealthy and ended up going on anti-psychotics to correct the problem. There is an enormous amount of knowledge contained in those discussions.
July 12 at 2:35am · Like · 2
Apollo Lee Adama Very interesting. Can't say I agree with all this secrecy (IMO this leads to abuse and obscures the identification of what works and what does not) but thanks for sharing your views.
July 12 at 2:40am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama I doubt Tummo can bring about anything that was not already latently there. Many a "spiritual seeker" is deluded (believing in the paranormal, previous lives and so on) and turns to meditation to fix psychological problems.
July 12 at 2:44am · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Wim Hof (NL) teaches Tummo large scale as a physical practice. Works fine.
July 12 at 2:47am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Your attitude regarding all of this is quite venomous Apollo, but to each their own. Can't fault you for playing your role within the spectrum of possibilities.
July 12 at 2:52am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon It's ok Justin i don't mind you saying that, you can leave that comment up if you like.
And all in all you're right. I suppose I see the same type of attitude in Apollo that Jax exhibits. But you're right I could be more civil and constructive in my criticism.
July 12 at 3:02am · Like
Zijazo Smith Tummo is just a means, Apollo, and inner composure is essential before engaging in anything that literally changes your own physiology. The idea that this should all be available at the gas station in booklets or some shit is basically capitalist and hugely irresponsible... sure, much of this is available on the Internet and in books but giving it all away indiscriminately-- what good does that do anybody? Really it only creates more problems. I'm not saying you endorse this view but your view kinda suggests it as a maybe. Also... if you're not up on the past lives thing and so forth, you really have no right to be negotiating the rules and regulations of the vibe... no disrespect; just sayin'.
(Also-- the irony-- a unfriendable guy with an alias and photos of masks on his page saying secrecy "leads to abuse" while he notes secrecy's "obscuring" effect... hmm...)
July 12 at 3:12am · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama I agree that Tummo is a means. My point was that Hof teaches Tummo "as is" (as a physical practice) without great harm. That indicates that the "danger" stories around it are greatly exaggerated. I don't quite follow the "you have no right" part, though. I live in Europe, and we can pretty much discuss any topic freely here.
July 12 at 3:14am · Like
Kyle Dixon "So the teachings are kept secret not because they are ignoble. Rather, they are kept secret to prevent others from reinforcing negative karma and to avoid impairing the dharma's greatness: there is no fault in maintaining secrecy.
The actual way to maintain secrecy , applies to the three kinds of people discussed earlier - ordinary people, those who are small-minded and those who divulge secrets. Do not disclose the terms, texts, key points, or even partial discussion of the tenets of these teachings...
Even if people who have heard rumours of them ask you, I would advise you to maintain secrecy and reply, 'I'm not sure', or 'Not having practised them, I have no idea.'"
-- Longchenpa
July 12 at 3:17am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. I freely teach techniques that can be used to kill people. This one is called the triangle choke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwN-E7LO3bM
Play Video
Gracie Insider October 2007 - Triangle Choke
http://www.GracieAcademy.com/ Rener, Ryron, and Reylan Gracie, head instructors ... See More
July 12 at 3:18am · Like · Remove Preview
Zijazo Smith Lol I'm a martial artist too, man. What I'm saying is that you don't give a child a loaded assault rifle. Right? Save that for someone who demonstrates the capacity-- preferably an adult, and preferably not drunk or on meth.
July 12 at 3:19am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Okay, lets look at that analogy. Maybe the best way to analyze the danger of "child with loaded assault rifle" vs "deadly triangle choke" is to look at the probability of harm.
July 12 at 3:20am · Like
Mr. J.C. I have no scientific way to analyze this, but I would guess that the probability of harm of a given meditation technique is less than "deadly triangle choke" and far less than "loaded assault rifle".
July 12 at 3:21am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Does harm happen with these techniques? Yes. It has, and it is absolutely tragic - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Man-24-killed-cousin-14...
Is it enough to keep me from teaching, not by a long shot because the collective benefit of openly teaching these techniques is so high.
Man, 24, 'killed by his cousin, 14, from a chokehold they did while watching Wrestlemania'
www.dailymail.co.uk
Stephan Arceneaux III, 24, pictured, died after his 14-year-old cousin held him ... See More
July 12 at 3:23am · Like · Remove Preview
Zijazo Smith I would openly teach Dzogchen in combination with other arts (i.e. Qigong and Aikido) if I were in fact qualified. I actually agree with you. What sucks is feeling responsible for what someone does to themselves with such sensitive information if'n things go awry... and I don't know if that's something I should get rid of either, inasmuch it's born from a real concern for people. Maybe you have a different take tho?
July 12 at 3:26am · Edited · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Here is another way to pose this. What do you think is potentially more harmful - meditation practice X or psychedelics? Because if its easier to get your hands on a psychedelic substance than this secret teaching then thats what people will find and use.
July 12 at 3:26am · Like
Mr. J.C. I'm not qualified to teach Dzogchen so I don't I am qualified to discuss practices that I do and the subjective results I observe. I am qualified to listen to others describe the practices they do and the subjective results they observe. I am qualified to make up my own mind about whether or not I should try a given practice based on others experience and with the support of an experienced community that can guide me through any difficulty I may experience.
July 12 at 3:29am · Like · 1
Zijazo Smith Well that's my exact point! When you're experienced enough (laugh?), it can be just like psychedelics.
July 12 at 3:30am · Like
Zijazo Smith Irie. That's basically what I stated in my first reply to this post.
July 12 at 3:31am · Like
Mr. J.C. So I'm honestly curious about that. What dosage are we talking about? If I do basic belly breathing my carpet starts breathing and undulating too - like a low dose of a psychedelic. The difference is that the probability of me begin locked in a hell dimension for 5 eternities is pretty low.
July 12 at 3:32am · Edited · Like · 1
Brian Zey If Kenneth Folk Incorporated ever finds out he's actually teaching Dzogchen he'll triple his rates. "Enlightenment for sale!!!"
July 12 at 3:44am · Like
Mr. J.C. Brian Zey - All of Kenneth's main ideas are freely available.
July 12 at 3:47am · Like
Zijazo Smith This is the point at which I ask Kyle if he's comfortable with us discussing this specific subject openly... I'm not averse to messaging you privately in any event. For one thing I don't wanna flip the switch on anyone who doesn't appreciate the nature of voidness and have them end up all anxious and frightened as to whether or not they exist (though that could actually prove healthy for one lol); and for two I don't want someone to misunderstand the nature of what we're discussing (and have to explain so much "extra," but I guess that's just laziness)... for reasons similar to why freely showcasing magical accomplishments / siddhis is frowned upon-- it misleads people into thinking that having those experiences is the goal when they haven't even cultivated a loving heart or stabilized their practice of certain foundational meditations.
July 12 at 3:47am · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon Which specific subject? There are others in this group who I'm sure have transmission and samaya commitments with these types of teachings. Respecting them is another reason why these practices shouldn't be discussed openly.
July 12 at 3:52am · Like
Zijazo Smith Best to just refrain, then.
July 12 at 3:54am · Like
Kyle Dixon In general it is okay to discuss these teachings (or one's own practice) with one's teacher, mentor, or (sparingly with) other sangha members who have received the same transmission.
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said that these teachings are not the type of thing you just discuss openly... he said for instance, you wouldn't walk into a bar and begin discussing these practices with strangers. Even if you were talking to a fellow practitioner it wouldn't be wise to talk about it where your conversation could be overheard.
And it isn't because it is some sort of special secret 'club' which wants to keep others out, but out of respect for the teaching. You receive transmission from you teacher, and you respect those teachings and want to maintain the integrity of your teacher's and your own samaya.
July 12 at 3:59am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. The tragedy of this attitude is that the rest of us aren't getting any wiser about the dangers. No one is on here saying openly - I did practice X and it caused me problem Y because of Z. This is perpetuating ignorance and inhibiting the ability of people to recognize problems and assist people who are going through them.
July 12 at 4:01am · Like · 4
Mr. J.C. Abstinence and ignorance are so last millennium.
July 12 at 4:02am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon I mean, there's always going to be those who scoff at this type of thing, and that cannot be avoided. Anytime you have something like this you're going to have the full spectrum of possibilities. Apollo and Jackson are examples of those who have an issue (for whatever reason) with the traditional presentation of the teachings and want to strip them of those views and tenets. I personally do not see the point of that, for if you are going to abandon a certain cultural narrative you are undoubtably going to end up picking up another. The point isn't to fixate on the conventional principles which surround the teaching, but to use them as a support. And the teachings these practices are associated with have clearly worked, the lineages are unbroken, and the integrity of the teachings is preserved... so any reason one could come up with for abandoning that at this point is unwarranted in my opinion. You think you'd want to apply the practice in the way the great adepts of the past had, which clearly works. But who knows.
One should be able to relate to the context in which these practices are found in an effective manner. Where they aren't grasped at too tightly, as they are understood to be provisional and conventional guidelines.... and where they aren't rejected altogether, for then you miss out on the intention of those principles as laid out by the wisdom-holders who accomplished and provided them.
The structures have existed for centuries, and are complete in themselves. Throwing them away means you are giving up that support, and one is then out to sea without a paddle... a new and effective conventional structure is not going to suddenly manifest out of nowhere.
There's a certain degree of reckless pride and ego in rejecting the conventional principles and tenets associated with these practices. The audacity that one thinks they can simply show up and reinvent the process. It is very strange. It sort of assumes that the buddhas, bodhisattvas and vidyadharas of the past were involved in superstition and other pointless practices. Which is essentially considering those individuals to be fools on some level, archaic or primitive... this type of attitude is very common in modern circles and is grossly inaccurate and pompous.
One should be humble enough to know that you don't know better. You're simply some guy who has come upon these teachings, which are primordial, self-perfected expressions of wisdom. It frankly blows my mind that people think so highly of themselves that they can take these practices, strip them of the context they are found in, and somehow be more successful, like they are God's gift to the dharma. Such logic shows great immaturity in my opinion.
July 12 at 4:24am · Like · 3
Mr. J.C. This is all true, and ...
July 12 at 4:40am · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Oh, it's the same old tune with all organised religions...taboo here, forbidden there, endless ritual yonder - all in a sauce of superstition. The Dharma has always evolved, regardless of religious hierarchies. Now it's blending with the scientific, Western mindset and it looks like both will come out for the better. Nothing but respect for the Tibetan masters who kept the Dharma alive! Less so for the Western Would-Be's donning funny robes, opposing necessary innovation, transparency and growth.
July 12 at 6:34am · Edited · Like
Apollo Lee Adama Anyway, it was interesting to get to know this community. It's way too ad hominem to my taste, so say thank you and leave. Ciao!
July 12 at 6:40am · Like
Kyle Dixon The dharma is definitely not blending with the western scientific mindset. How foolish to think the limited paradigms of scientific thought could improve the dharma.
And as for your rejection of what you consider to be 'superstition' that is comedy being that you evoke materialist physicalist science in the next sentence.
July 12 at 6:52am · Like
Kyle Dixon Apologies for the ad hom rhetoric Apollo, but it is quite troubling to see someone who is interested in these teachings desecrate them in multiple ways. Especially in the name of so-called "necessary innovation, transparency and growth"... there is no innovation, transparency or growth in what you are advocating for.
This type of view, which is called nihilism according to Dzogchen, is a byproduct of failure to understand how one's nature relates to conventional phenomena, processes, customs, paths and appearances in general. Knowledge of your nature does not contradict any of those things, and those things do not contradict knowledge of your nature.
When you read expositions from Dzogchen which are deprecating cause and effect paths, ritual, etc., they are making those statements because they are speaking from the ultimate perspective, the highest wisdom, which requires nothing... that nature is Dzogchen. The individual, the practitioner, is not Dzogchen. The individual works with their knowledge of Dzogchen and supports are required for that practice.
This will not make sense for you, coming from your encounters with Jax, who advocates for a nihilistic neo-advaita type view. But this is how Dzogchen works, and how the system which surrounds that nature functions effectively. For primordial wisdom there is no basis, path or result, however for the practitioner there is. If this isn't understood then then mind simply grasps at a weak semblance of its understanding regarding one's nature, and if that error isn't corrected, then the entire possibility of liberation is compromised.
"Some say: 'Cause and effect, compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'
These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."
- Longchenpa | rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso
July 12 at 7:24am · Like · 3
Lindsay Funk Kyle, do you think Dzogchen is special in that the teachings are potentially more harmful than than the other expressions of dharma which are freely available? Would there be harm in a movement within Dzogchen to talk about and correct mistaken views instead of limiting them to those fortunate enough to be with a teacher? I think Greg's a great example of laying out full-strength teachings, and then being there to help guide misunderstandings. Doesn't open source dharma give the bodhisattva exponential power?
July 12 at 7:59am · Like · 6
Soh In Chinese Buddhism we call Vajrayana ?? which means the secret sect, the esoteric sect. Vajrayana would not be vajrayana without its defining secrecy. Chnn spent quite a long time looking not so happy and telling us in Singapore retreat how he received an email from his western student and his girlfriend anf they screwed up their energy and went psychotic from practicing tummo from books and now want him to solve their problem. Since its energy related no western medicine can solve it but through yantra yoga diet etc it may improve. point was never experiment based on books even if one has received initiation into that practice and that one shld receive intimate instructions and guidance. I think the danger with Vajrayana has partly or much to do with energy practices. Theravada and classic Mahayana dont often deal with these so it is safer to practice on ones own in a way.
July 12 at 11:22am · Edited · Like · 2
Soh Personally I also would prefer dharma to be as open as possible but I think Vajrayana and energy practices could be an exception simply because of the dangers of unguided practice. Otherwise I like openness in the spirit of what Buddha said: Monks, there are these three things which are practiced in secret, not openly. What are they?
The ways of womenfolk are secret, not open. Brahmins practice their chants in secret, not openly. Those of perverse views [that's philosophically rather than sexually perverse views, I assume] hold their views secretly, not openly. These are the three things…
Monks, there are these three things which shine forth for all to see, which are not hidden. Which three?
The disc of the moon shines for all to see; it is not hidden. The disc of the sun does likewise. The Dhamma-Discipline [dhamma-vinaya] of a Tathagata [Buddha] shines for all to see; it is not hidden. These are the three things.
July 12 at 11:37am · Edited · Like · 3
Lindsay Funk Soh, I get your point, and it totally makes sense, but...
They WERE his students, presumably following his prescribed practices. It would be nice if we could all have a lama that could hold our hand all the time, but who does?
I get that Vajrayana practices emphasize energy more, so problems could be amplified, but any good practice will likely invoke energies. I can't say how valuable it's been for me to see the open discussion of these things on places like the DhO.
I have to wonder if part of the secrecy in Vajrayana was political. I've heard that in times past dissent wasn't the safest option in Tibet.
July 12 at 11:40am · Like · 1
Soh I believe the secrecy of Vajrayana predated Tibet but is very much intrinsic to Tantric traditions even back in India. I believe the same secrecy is practiced in Shingon which is the Japanese version of Vajrayana
July 12 at 12:09pm · Like · 2
Mr. J.C. Mahasi noting can really screw up your energy too. I don't think there is any getting around energetic side effects with effective practices.
July 12 at 2:51pm · Unlike · 3
Mr. J.C. I had a plane ride where my kryas were so bad that I told the woman next to me that I had Tourette's Syndrome and the movement was a side effect of the medication. I put on my headphones to try to look like I was moving to some music.
July 12 at 2:53pm · Unlike · 4
Soh LOL
July 12 at 3:16pm · Like · 1
Zijazo Smith Why tempt others by revealing exactly what fucked you up though? Almost seems like you take pride in it, in your resilience maybe. But the folly was real, no?
July 12 at 3:23pm · Edited · Like
Priscilla Francis people sometimes share what did not work for them so that others that come upon it can tread with caution.
July 12 at 3:34pm · Like · 1
Ej Alex Yeah, you can also get into the nature of mind through Advaita practice. There will also be energetic changes. Maybe you will have problems with falling asleep. So what? There are many ways into getting on the top of the mountain and if some paths think they are better/faster/more exlusive.. whatever. I´ll choose another way.
July 13 at 12:52am · Like
Soh I do not agree that all roads lead up to the same mountaintop. Different roads lead to different realizations. If the nature of mind is mere awareness or ground of being in Buddhism it would be no different from Advaita. However that is not the definitive nature of mind in Buddhism. I am replying from a phone so I will keep this short. Kyle Dixon can elaborate more as he also speaks from deep experiential insight. Meanwhile I would like to refer this article on the different realizations: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.hk/.../thusnesss-six... interestingly Thusness had warned a number of people since a decade ago that the intense attachment to Awareness/Presence after self realization will cause insomnia. This problem resolves itself after anatta realization.
Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
I understand very little of what Thusness has said. The path that Thusness descr... See More
July 13 at 1:24am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview
Ej Alex I agree. But like you Soh, you didn´t need the so "ultimate" Dzogchen to arrive at the point where you are now.
July 13 at 1:42am · Like · 1
David Vardy In the Taoist tradition, meditation is highly energetic and potentially dangerous. Add a touch of volition to the mix and you have a time bomb waiting to explode. Learning those techniques from books is very possible which makes them that much more dangerous. An example is Mantak Chia, He opened the flood gate with his teachings. And it's not that they're wrong. Quite the contrary, he knows his stuff from a technical vantage, but he permits people to teach his work who are wholly unqualified. No doubt he's in it for the money. He has no concern for individuals who have had physical and psychic problems arise from doing his practice incorrectly or correctly in some cases. The point being practices which develop Chi/Kundalini are the ones which should probably be kept secret. The snake is out of the bag though and it's better that problems people experience be voiced rather than hushed. As far as Dzogchen goes, it's so refined and far from grosser energetic practices which have the potential of being practiced volitionally that I doubt there is much danger in hearing the Absolute position. After all, it doesn't even include the practitioner.....
July 13 at 2:43am · Like
Mr. J.C. David - I had my first opening spontaneously when I was 17 and had absolutely no information, context, or support for what I was going through. I spent the next 3 years confused and depressed until I fully suppressed the experience through various distractions. When I had my next spontaneous opening 15 years later reading Eckart Tolle, I was immediately launched into kundalini phenomenon and it was again incredibly difficult to find any information about what I was going through.
So thanks to all you guys who did a good job keeping things secret.
I think nowadays, usage of psychedelics is surging again, and there is now a new generation of people who are having some type of awakening experience that could really use this information to keep them out of possible dark night cycles.
July 13 at 3:18am · Like · 2
Mr. J.C. For the drug using community, the site erowid.org is pure compassionate action. The focus is "harm reduction", which should be the aim of any rational bodhisattva. People post their experiences with different substances at different doses and you can learn very quickly what might be worthwhile and what to stay far away from. For example:
July 13 at 3:21am · Like
Mr. J.C. http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=42888
Erowid Experience Vaults: Belladonna - Satan Salad - 42888
www.erowid.org
An Experience with Belladonna. 'Satan Salad' by Loose Id
July 13 at 3:21am · Like · Remove Preview
David Vardy The vault is mostly filled with stories of the inexperienced and weekend flippers however. Pikhal is a better source.
July 13 at 3:30am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Regarding many paths to get to the top of the same mountain; Buddhism would disagree with this notion. In fact according to Buddhism, the buddhadharma is the only way out of samsara, and paths such as Advaita etc., can only lead to higher samsaric realms.
Tricycle just wrote about this recently:
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/one-way-nirvana
One Way to Nirvana | Tricycle
www.tricycle.com
This article is the tenth in the Tricycle blog series 10 Misconceptions about Buddhism with scholars Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr.
July 13 at 4:11am · Like · Remove Preview
Ej Alex I think that´s right. But no one says that one has to stay with one tradition. Advaita can serve as kind of skilfull means that will lead to certain realizations. It is also possible to understand truly what is wrong with their view and appreciate even more the teaching of the Buddha. Then it´s not some dogmatic understanding of the shortcomings of these teachings, but it is based on personal experience and not some parroting.
July 13 at 4:32am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Well, I wouldn't say it is dogmatic either way. Dogmatism is possible, but that would depend on the individual and how he or she is relating to such notions.
Different paths and traditions can have different ideas of what it means to be liberated, and I believe this is the case with Buddhism and Hindu traditions. It doesn't mean one is right and the other is wrong, or one is better than the other... of course I am personally biased in the sense that the buddhadharma resonates with me far more than Hindu Advaita etc. ever did. But it isn't that there is anything 'wrong' with their view.
When I first became involved with the buddhadharma it was somewhat over my head, and I actually deviated into Advaita yoga for some time. Understanding Advaita helped to put certain Buddhist principles and ideas in perspective, and Vedanta was very helpful in that way. Ultimately however they are quite different now that I have a clear understanding of their respective views.
July 13 at 4:39am · Edited · Like
Ej Alex It´s just that, I think that the practice of Advaita is closer to Dzogchen than for example Theravada (but of course still not the same). On the other side Dzogchen declares that it contains every lower Yana like Theravada. If someone uses the Advaita methods and then afterwards tries to realize basic Theravada (Anicca, Dukha, Anatta), he won´t need to have some secret Dzogchen, at least in my opinion.
July 13 at 4:52am · Like
Kyle Dixon When Dzogchen says it contains the lower yanas it simply means that Dzogchen itself, as your nature is the heart of the buddhadharma or what all paths are aiming to realize. In the sense that dzogchen is prajñaparamita is mahamudra and so on. So the statement that Dzogchen contains all paths is equivalent to saying prajñaparamita contains all paths.
Advaita and Dzogpachenpo are somewhat different in principle; for one Advaita is an ontological view which reifies an independent, uncaused, indivisible existent (purusha), whereas Dzogchen does not.
There are some similarities of course, but my personal view is that the Advaita methodology is a completely different path from, really anything found in the buddhadharma, dzogchen included.
July 13 at 5:03am · Like
Ej Alex Then how do you explain that Soh and Thusness and everyone that has practiced the same way like them, comes to the same conclusion like the Dzogchen teaching? They all started with Advaita and probably without some secret "direct introduction".
July 13 at 5:09am · Like
Kyle Dixon The 'direct introduction' is just an aspect of the Dzogchen system. Direct introduction isn't a requirement to become liberated, there is no direct introduction in Mahayana or other Sutrayana paths, yet liberation is of course achievable through those vehicles just the same. So direct introduction is only pertinent to the 'system' of Dzogchen.
While Advaita may have played a role in Soh and Thusness' paths (how large or small I can't say), they were (and still are) very much involved with the view of the Buddhadharma. So it isn't as if Advaita was their sole paths which led to the various realizations they have had.
July 13 at 5:20am · Like
Ej Alex And I never thought that Advaita is capable of leading one to the top of the mountain by itself, just that one could reach this place with many ways outside of Dzogchen. Never liked this elitist attitude "lower yanas will take you eons". Any kind of practice can cause damage, I can understand that some tantric energy work is probably more dangerous. But why should they make such a fuss about Dzogchen, while you can talk openly without a problem about Advaita, Theravada and what not? Just a traditional, cultural thing, as I see it. Some exclusive club. It may work of course, but still, I don´t like it. I prefer people like Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Soh and Thusness, people who speak openly and clearly without any kind of dogmatic bullshit.
July 13 at 5:35am · Like · 2
Ej Alex Not that I disrespect the teachings.
July 13 at 5:37am · Like
Kyle Dixon Advaita certainly leads to the top of its mountain, otherwise it would be a useless path, of course it isn't (a useless path) and has survived for centuries as a means for the mode of liberation that Advaita is meant to accomplish.
Dzogchen only makes elitist statements of that kind (the lower yanas taking eons to accomplish) in the expositions on its own view. It is very normal for a system's core texts to compare and contrast itself against other views, and the Dzogchen tantras are no different. That is done to define the system itself, and demonstrate how it stands out from other views and paths.
At the same time, you can see the Dzogchen tantras make statements like this: "Though the different vehicles are beyond concept, there is no more than one if wisdom is realized." or from Vairocana: "According to grades of capacity, there are individual gateways into the innermost view of ultimate dharmata; One will obtain or realize the result by realizing any doctrine in the vehicle of the sublime Dharma."
So the elitist statements are made in context, and as you can see the other yanas are not outright deprecated.
All in all though, the reason Dzogchen says this is again due to the fact that Dzogpachenpo is your inborn nature, and the praxis of Dzogchen involves an initial recognition of that nature, and then familiarization. In that way the principle of the Dzogchen path is different from the paths featured in the other yanas because Dzogchen aims to have the aspirant recognize the nature of their mind on the outset (and then work with revisiting and familiarizing with that nature). For that reason Dzogchen is said to be 'rapid' for those who have the capacity to practice it, because it aims to cut through to unfabricated dharmata from the very beginning, and from there, the definitive meditation is resting in dharmata. This is why you see Dzogchen state that other systems implement mind as the foundation for their paths, while the path of Dzogchen is vidya free of mind.
That subtlety is another reason why the system depends on a relationship with a teacher, because it is extremely simple to misinterpret the teaching as saying something it isn't. It's also very easy to misconstrue the nature of the path, and believe one has recognized wisdom and is practicing the view when in fact one has not. So a qualified teacher is really indispensable in Dzogchen, and the aspect of secrecy helps to maintain the integrity of these easily misinterpreted teachings, while also keeping any misinterpretations which may arise from being spread everywhere.
This all has to understood in the context of how Vajrayana is as a system. The secrecy is far from anything which remotely resembles an attempt to institute an 'exclusive club'.
If Vajrayana doesn't resonate with you then it doesn't, and that is okay too, no reason why it should. To each their own.
July 13 at 6:14am · Edited · Like · 2
Lindsay Funk I think you can only judge a path by the extent to which you've walked it. IMO, Advaita gets caricaturized here in a similar way that Kyle would accuse many of misrepresenting Dzogchen.
We allow skillful means in Buddhism, and grant that many teachings that are first represented in a literal fashion actually just need to serve their purpose before they can be seen as merely provisional. Yet it doesn't seem to be granted that this may be happening in other paths.
For instance, in Greg's case, he talks about reaching the end of suffering through the Direct Path. And he also says that once one has established the "transparent witness" then the dissolving process just naturally occurs on its own. And eventually the tools of the path are themselves dissolved. This is huge, because it means that latter stages of the path unfold inevitably and don't need to be explicitly discussed. So, the path on paper isn't necessarily the path realized.
The world is illusion
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world
I think most criticisms of Advaita stop after the second line. But IMO the the last line is when "mountains become mountains again" and any foreground/background dualism collapses.
BTW, Kyle, since you're usually quick to point out that not all paths go to the top of the mountain, would you mind defining the top of the mountain?
July 13 at 6:14am · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon Even Greg admits the respective paths are different, for instance:
Someone wrote:
I am trying to realize no self
and am trying to deconstruct things
like trying to see everything as the six senses,
taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else.
anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it.
dont know what I am doing wrong.
but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice.
please help me out.
p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to
the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it,
but not sure if I am doing it correctly.
dont know what I am missing.
would love to get some guidance.
p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice
but also recommended that I ask my question here
as there are more members here
and a lot of people who have already realized anatta.
Greg replies:
Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.
July 13 at 6:17am · Like · 2
David Vardy Ignorance has done a fine enough job as gatekeeper for the open secret. There's really no substitute for amnesia nor is there a better barrier to entry No need to be concerned about who should have access to the teachings and how. Besides, it's never about what's happening.....what's happening being what the concern is about.
July 13 at 6:18am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Lindsay, none of this is meant to criticize Advaita. Advaita isn't being deprecated, it is a beautiful teaching and a fully functioning path which can help sentient beings to overcome suffering.
The only thing that is being contested are the perennialistic type views which state that, for instance, Advaita and the Buddhist paths are the same, or are pointing to the same thing. I don't prescribe to this view for the very reason that I don't see that as being the case when the underlying principles of these paths are evaluated. But if someone else wants to believe that then that is all well and good. We're all entitled to our opinions.
Also, I'm not saying that all paths fail to reach the summit of the mountain, I'm challenging the notion of a single mountain that all paths are traversing in the first place. I'm saying that each path may very well scale its own mountain, and there is nothing wrong with that.
July 13 at 6:25am · Edited · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon I mean, overall the teachings aren't so secret that people cannot (especially in this day in age) research them, or find a teacher to learn the teaching from.
For the most part all you really have to do is find a teacher and ask, or pay attention to what teachers are traveling around, or travel to them... I do both if needed.
July 13 at 6:29am · Like
Lindsay Funk Yes, I getcha, Kyle. It's just that, for instance, many would say that the aim of Buddhism is the end of suffering. Yet Greg, and many others have recognized that through other means.
So, considering the amount of path comparisons that come up, I just like to know what you consider to be the top of the mountain in the traditions that you subscribe to.
July 13 at 6:30am · Like
Mason Spransy ". I'm saying that each path may very well scale its own mountain, and there is nothing wrong with that."
Well, the fact that most of those mountains are still within Samsara probably counts as a "wrong with that"
July 13 at 6:31am · Like · 1
Mason Spransy Insofar as they presume to escape samsara, that is
July 13 at 6:31am · Like
Kyle Dixon However, those mountains being unable to lead beyond samsara is just what Buddhism says, because the statement is predicated on how Buddhism defines liberation. In the context of "Buddhist liberation" those paths do not provide that type of liberation. However that does not mean they do not produce their own liberation, as they define it.
On the other hand if you go an ask someone who practices Advaita yoga if their path does not lead out of samsara, they will of course give you a strange look. That is because they define their path and result in their own context.
So these statements aren't blanket statements of objective truth, they are representative of the structure and path which accords with the system who is making said statement. They are true in their respective contexts... there is certainly not a single context.
When Buddhism states that Vedanta fails to overcome samsara, that is true in the context of Buddhism and how Buddhism defines samsara, or how Buddhism defines nirvana.
Vedanta isn't going to define bondage and liberation in the same way Buddhism does, and therefore the assertion from Buddhism, that Vedanta fails to transcend samsara, no longer makes sense in the context of Vedanta.
They are two different paths.
July 13 at 6:40am · Edited · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon The most important thing is that these traditions allow for sentient beings to overcome suffering, however they accomplish that.
These subtle details and comparative analyses about the differences in paths and views are simply that, just discussions regarding the differences in paths and views.
July 13 at 6:44am · Like · 1
Mason Spransy But Buddhism does proclaim itself to be the supreme path - and justifies that statement by claiming that other traditions do not save us from samsara because their teachings are deluded.
You can be a cultural relativist, and you can be a Buddhist, but it does not seem to me that you can be both at the same time.
July 13 at 6:45am · Like
Mason Spransy And the most important thing is liberation from suffering, not just overcoming it temporarily. Am I wrong?
July 13 at 6:49am · Like
Kyle Dixon Any path speaking from its own perspective is going to assert that its own system is supreme when compared to others.
Hence why traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism have long histories of debate and polemics.
You'll also find Buddhist teachers who say every tradition should be respected and if they lead to a decrease in suffering then that is a wonderful path. So much of this depends on context.
July 13 at 7:11am · Like
Ej Alex By the way, Rigpa is not liberation, but through Rigpa one can realize that what liberates, namely non-conceptual insight into emptiness. The view in the direct path is a different one. But like you mentioned, Kyle, in the end of Gregs book he is talking about the collapse of the substratum. That´s the natural state. The end of a background, aka non-duality, but still without the understanding of absence of inherency. So, one could use that method till point of the collapse of the witness. Afterwards one could just simply use some Bahya contemplation and Nagarjunas middle way. All just a question of understanding the views.
July 13 at 7:13am · Like
Lindsay Funk Ej, when everything is subsumed into awareness, and then even awareness collapses, what could possibly still be viewed as inherent?
July 13 at 7:16am · Like · 1
Mason Spransy Kyle,
Yes, I think all of these different spiritual traditions are wonderful, but one must make a commitment sooner or later. And once you've made that commitment, you can no longer talk from the standpoint of an academic or a window shopper (cultural relativism). It is disingenuous to do otherwise.
So when you say that there is no problem with the goal of Advaita spirituality, that is true from a cultural relativist's standpoint, but it is not true from a Buddhist standpoint. It is not helpful for interfaith dialogue to suspend your own beliefs and commitments.
And it is still very possible to appreciate these traditions while soberly keeping in mind that they are flawed.
Remember: religious beliefs are not opinions, they are claims to truth.
July 13 at 7:21am · Like
Ej Alex It´s not about what any kind of tradition is saying about itself, but the practitioners that realize what is truly helping them to end suffering. I heard from many that know both paths, like Soh and Thusness. At this point it´s still not my own experience, but everyone that knows both kinds of liberations states that the buddhist one is the one that that will lead to the irreversible end of suffering. I trust them, don´t know why.
July 13 at 7:22am · Like
Ej Alex Lindsay Funk, that´s the interesting question. If the teaching is talking about eternal permanence. It could be that this kind of view will condition the experience and block the understanding of change or better said self-liberation or even non-arising. Buddha-nature is impermanence in contrast to some independent, unchanging whatever.
July 13 at 7:32am · Like
Justin Struble Kyle's repeated references to Jackson Peterson, remind me of that story about an old monk and a young monk, where the old monk carries a woman across the stream. if you get my drift. haha
EDIT: And while I agree that Dzogchen teachings should be treated with the utmost respect, care, and devotion, I would still argue against secrecy. Secrecy is just more "mushroom culture" as KFD / DHO folks might term it. And so would many teachers, as many dzogchen teachers have written widely available books openly describing trekcho and togal. Just mho.
Mr. J.C., I like what you're describing here, may i suggest a sort of integration of the two? In regards to the first half of your original post, I would suggest penetrating / seeing the crystal clear unobstructedness, the non-solidity aspect of all experience, as being like clear transparent ungraspable space. non-arisen, like unstructured, unconditioned space.
To integrate this, when one is penetrating to the dis-jointed, pixel-like appearances of scintillating sensations, one can clearly see that the "pixels" themselves are transparent, luminous, and unobstructed in addition to being dis-joint, and without any connection or vantage point. Short summary, both aspects of insight that you describe can be present at once.
Does this make sense to you? Quite often in my practice my experience consists of an integration of these various aspects of insight into the appearance of phenomena all at once / holistically, and this sort of integration results in what i think of as a more complete or mature sort of wisdom / insight arising.
July 13 at 7:34am · Edited · Like · 2
Ej Alex But will one experience some unchanging thing after the collapse of the witness? Or will he perceive every kind of phenomena as himself in contrast to realization of twofold empiness?
July 13 at 7:42am · Like
Lindsay Funk Ej, I don't think either of these conceptions need apply. Beyond the need or relevance of view.
July 13 at 7:45am · Like
Justin Struble The first half, recognizing the non-solidity, unobstructed transparency, is reminiscent of "cutting-through" to me, while the latter part, recognizing the dis-jointedness, and scintillating pixel-like quality of sensations, tends to offer the opportunity of allowing luminosity to be enhanced / shine through unobstructed. To me, both of these aspects of insight / wisdom reinforce one another, and although we can describe them individually, they are actually inseparable.
At any rate, thanks for sharing your insights / experience Justin, they struck a chord with how my own practice is unfolding.
July 13 at 7:47am · Edited · Like · 3
Ej Alex Lindsay Funk But then Buddhism would lead to the same as Hinduism, or am I wrong?
July 13 at 7:48am · Like
Lindsay Funk Ej, let's find 2 Buddhists from different schools and see if they agree. We don't even need to bring in another tradition to see difference at the level if view. Thank God Buddhism is empty too
July 13 at 7:55am · Like
Ej Alex Yeah, but that´s the essence of Buddhism that makes it special in contrast to Hiduism, isn´t it?
July 13 at 8:03am · Like
Ej Alex I mean that it is empty. Don´t think that Hinduism would talk this way about itself
July 13 at 8:04am · Like
Ej Alex The question could also be if the absolute understanding (beyond words) of both is the same, but the relative (concepts and words) is different?
July 13 at 8:07am · Like
Lindsay Funk IMO, these paths can both wind up in total ineffability. You might say the essence of Buddhism is that it has no essence. And you might say that some Advaitists teach that there's only awareness - and not even that. Probably most practitioners get caught up in the weeds somewhere short of no view.
July 13 at 8:12am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Justin writes: "Kyle's repeated references to Jackson Peterson, remind me of that story about an old monk and a young monk, where the old monk carries a woman across the stream. if you get my drift. haha"
No, don't get your drift, but as you are a fan of Jax's teachings, you're obviously going to side against any naysayers. And that is okay.
Justin writes: "...as many dzogchen teachers have written widely available books openly describing trekcho and togal."
Yet all of those texts say that none of those practices should be done without proper transmission from a qualified teacher.
July 13 at 8:21am · Like
Justin Struble Sure, Kyle, but that doesn't mean it is forbidden to discuss the practices / teachings. As they are clearly publicly available. I really don't see the benefit of not discussing practice between practitioners.
There are many vows in many traditions that prohibit discussing practice experiences, and frankly I am skeptical of their benefit. Secrecy can also be harmful. However I haven't advocated anyone take up such practices without transmission / a qualified teacher.
You've never heard of that Fable about the two monks? I'm surprised.
July 13 at 8:27am · Like
Justin Struble "Two monks were making a pilgrimage to venerate the relics of a great Saint. During the course of their journey, they came to a river where they met a beautiful young woman -- an apparently worldly creature, dressed in expensive finery and with her hair done up in the latest fashion. She was afraid of the current and afraid of ruining her lovely clothing, so asked the brothers if they might carry her across the river.
The younger and more exacting of the brothers was offended at the very idea and turned away with an attitude of disgust. The older brother didn't hesitate, and quickly picked the woman up on his shoulders, carried her across the river, and set her down on the other side. She thanked him and went on her way, and the brother waded back through the waters.
The monks resumed their walk, the older one in perfect equanimity and enjoying the beautiful countryside, while the younger one grew more and more brooding and distracted, so much so that he could keep his silence no longer and suddenly burst out, "Brother, we are taught to avoid contact with women, and there you were, not just touching a woman, but carrying her on your shoulders!"
The older monk looked at the younger with a loving, pitiful smile and said, "Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river; you are still carrying her."
The implication here is that you are still carrying some resentment towards Jackson, Kyle.
July 13 at 8:29am · Like
Kyle Dixon Ah, well thinking charlatans do a disservice to whatever it is they allegedly represent isn't exactly resentment my friend.
July 13 at 8:44am · Like · 1
Justin Struble If those thoughts are arising long after said "charlatan" is no longer immediately present in one's experience, then it could be that there is some aversion that is being held onto. It is one thing to oppose what you see as wrong views when they are being propagated in the immediate present; in your presence. It is another to cling to the past and continue acting upon it after the fact. For example, if one notices what they think is wrong views in certain individuals in the present, and immediately assumes there must be some connection to a "charlatan" of the past producing those wrong views in others. That looks like projection / clinging / blaming to me. And what is resentment but a concoction of blame and clinging to past "wrongs". At any rate, be well Kyle.
July 13 at 8:57am · Edited · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon He came up because Apollo is a student of Jax's... therefore it was immediately present.
Man ngag sde teachings being spoken of openly on Facebook came up as a topic, Jax teaches man ngag sde openly on Facebook.
It's not rocket science.
July 13 at 8:59am · Like
Justin Struble Ah, well I was not aware of any connection between "Apollo" and Jax.. I guess I missed that part of the discussion.
July 13 at 9:00am · Like
Robert Dominik Aw shit. People discussing high-level teachings (without seeking for a personal guidance from a truly realised master) on facebook again xD
July 13 at 9:18am · Like
Robert Dominik It's a shame that people don't want to practice other practices that for example Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche transmits (for a good reason - there are so many powerful and transformative practices that improve one's capacity before going further) but they immediately want to skip stages and jump at things they're not ready for. He even mentioned this himself. He mentioned this is in the context of XXXXTOPSECRETGUESSWHATITOGALYOURMOMMAXYZLOLTOMUCHSWAG and said that some people we're angry at him and called him uncompassionate because he didn't feel they were ready for getting some instructions from him. He said that if these poor beings want to destroy themselves then it's their business but that it's sad It's a shame that there are people out there who claim to be students of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche but actually deny and reject sensible statements from Rinpoche on these topics. One would wonder where did they get their Fakechen from if the Lineage Masters don't know shit and don't know how to teach according to these "students" xD
July 13 at 9:41am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. "So when you say that there is no problem with the goal of Advaita spirituality, that is true from a cultural relativist's standpoint, but it is not true from a Buddhist standpoint."
I would think the mature Buddhist would be able to hold multiple points of view simultaneously.
July 13 at 4:13pm · Like
Mr. J.C. "To integrate this, when one is penetrating to the dis-jointed, pixel-like appearances of scintillating sensations, one can clearly see that the "pixels" themselves are transparent, luminous, and unobstructed in addition to being dis-joint, and without any connection or vantage point. Short summary, both aspects of insight that you describe can be present at once"
Thanks, I will look into this. What I find personally is that the disjoint/vantageless experience seems so complete (as in free of lack) that there seems no need to look at anything else. That said, I'll try to exert some effort and see what I find.
July 13 at 4:17pm · Like
Justin Struble cool, please continue to share. when both aspects you describe are present at once, when there is clear seeing of the vantageless disjoint sensations, co-arising with the wisdom that the sensations are unobstructed, insubstantial, transparent, and luminous, then one has arrived at suchness ( imo ). additionally, there is the realization that there was never any arrival, or anyone to arrive, and that suchness was always already the case.
July 13 at 4:56pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon Which is the beginning of the definitive path.
July 13 at 6:51pm · Like · 3
John Tan Is it necessary to establish a causal relationship between the prajna wisdom of emptiness to the unmade mind essence/clarity/original face? We need to integrate the two in practice but is there a direct causal relationship between the 2? Does the practice of one affirms and lead to the other?
July 13 at 7:07pm · Like · 1
David Vardy No need to integrate. Prajna is the functional component of the original face, so to speak.
July 14 at 12:28am · Like
David Vardy "Unobstructed, insubstantial, transparent and luminous..." does not appear 'as such' in the presence of an assumed seer.
July 14 at 12:34am · Like
James Foley I think the value of talking openly about practices is really necessary, in fact I think it's not done nearly enough, not even among people who like to do it. This comes from my experience where I feel I wasted thousands of hours because I absolutely needed to do something about my experience yet no one pointed me in the right way, even though that was a fairly simple task to do. I got lucky and eventually happened upon a teacher who did expose me to the things I needed.
But that took three years. Before that there were a small handful of teachers, more when you consider more official Buddhist retreat teachers, a couple priests, a Tibetan ex-Llama, and about seven yoga teachers who totally overlooked my problem.
.
I find it strange to say that wanting to talk about a practice outwardly entails a layer of pomposity for whomever may think they can do it. The reality is that some people just don't want to kill themselves, hence they are turning to meditation techniques. That's the impetus.
My experience with official organized sangha has been more noise than sound, more people who have judged me even when I've behaved harmlessly, and I haven't been able to tell where the practice is in these institutions. For instance, one of the community members equating 'equanimity' with 'equality in relationships'. Right? Equanimity is when you're nice to someone.
What?
Some people need reliable practices, so who is going to give it to them, and in a way where it will work?
July 14 at 4:13pm · Edited · Like · 3
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Hey Justin. Is the "reality pixels" you mention akin to the dazzling, glimmering of sunlight on the surface of water? Like, almost literally like that, except it's not quite experienced as visual phenomena.
Any suggestions on how to, first of all, reliably bring it about and intensify it, and second, how to work with it?
July 23 at 7:32am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. Sure. I would say that it is similar. For me, approaching this from a visual standpoint is easy. I can look at anything in the room, and especially solid colors have a every-changing shimmering quality to them.
Probably the easiest way is to walk up to a wall with some shadow on it and get close enough so that the solid color of the wall takes up most of the visual field. Instead of being seen as one "thing", it is seen as millions of simultaneous experiences that aren't really connected to each other.
July 23 at 11:10am · Like
Mr. J.C. Physical sensation is probably the next easiest. If I find some sensation int he body that seems to be tingling, like the pressure from my butt in the chair, then I can clfeek all that tingling simultaneously as disjoint independent experiences.
July 23 at 11:11am · Like
Mr. J.C. Hearing is fairly more difficult, which makes sense to me since I understand sound as vibrations as different frequencies, so it has less information than vision or feel does. However, what you can do with hearing is to treat it as a separate smaller set of pixels that is independent from other senses such as seeing or feeling.
July 23 at 11:14am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Where this becomes most applicable is when there is some feeling of contraction within the field of experience. This contraction or tension is its own set of disjoint experiences that are separate from all of the other experiences. While attention is held in this way on the infinitely slippery disjoint experiences, I find it is not really possible to cling/suffer.
July 23 at 11:16am · Like
Mr. J.C. What really wraps it all up for me is the insight that exactly whatever is being experienced right now is the only thing that can be experienced right now. It is not possible to be missing out on some alternative experience, because if it doesn't exist right now, it doesn't exist as an experience period.
In this space, it is not important to objectify a sense of self or to really investigate, because exactly what is arising is already complete and perfect because there is no other way that it can possibly be.
This is very pragmatic. If there is no suffering, there is no problem, so why try harder or look further?
July 23 at 11:19am · Like
Mr. J.C. Also, if these non-arising "things" are experienced simultaneously what must it mean? Does it mean that there is an observer that is able to take it all in simultaneously, or is it more likely that these individual experiences are self-luminous or self-known to themselves and simply integrated within a sphere of consciousness?
July 23 at 11:20am · Like
David Vardy I think it's appropriate to quote John Tan here from a different thread, "At certain point, the magic of clarity, the effortless spontaneity, the marvelous display, the miraculous activity and the perfection that defies all effort must be fully acknowledged."
July 23 at 6:07pm · Like
Justin Struble http://apracticejournal.wordpress.com/.../awareness.../
this is a really great description of rigpa.
Awareness Continuum Stage by Stage
apracticejournal.wordpress.com
This has been my formal practice for over two months now. The differences betwee... See More
July 24 at 12:22am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Justin Struble it's important to understand that the qualities of clarity, vividness, freshness, looseness, etc... that are authentic signs of abiding in rigpa, are not in of themselves our essence / true nature, but rather they are ( changing / dynamic ) qualities associated with abiding ( or with their absence not abiding ) in recognition / knowledge of our nature; ie rigpa knowledge.
if we cling to these qualities as our true nature, we have erred. our definitive true nature is always spontaneously present, even when the mind is dull, distracted, bored, contracted, etc.. throughout every and all states, even when we lack recognition / knowledge of our nature, our nature is always precisely as it has always already been. our true nature never deviates and does not change. this is the definitive essence, the primordially and spontaneously present knowing that is always already the case without exception.
additionally, our definitive nature / essence is primordially free from grasping / clinging / reification / identification ... it cannot be taken as an object of grasping, it cannot be pinned down, located, found, etc .. and as soon as our essence / definitive nature is clearly recognized with rigpa knowledge, all grasping / clinging / reification / identification is immediately self liberated.
therefore it does not make sense to continually guard against our nature being reified or identified with, unless one is asserting that those who are reifying / identifying haven't truly recognized their nature, and are instead reifying some transient quality.
July 24 at 12:51am · Edited · Like · 1
Soh But Justin, what you're saying sounds like reifying a Turiya to me -- Turiya in Advaita means 'that which transcends the three states'. What do you say about that?
July 24 at 1:18am · Like · 1
Justin Struble I don't know how much more clearly one can say there is no reification, Soh ... it seems to me that you're creating strawmans.
July 24 at 1:21am · Like
Soh You see, the Advaitins will also tell you that Turiya is not a reification. It is the eternal consciousness underlying and transcending the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep. I used to hold that view too. It certainly didn't felt like reification when I was going through that phase. I was established as a deathless, transcendent Awareness which was held to be my very essence, not transient, but from which all waking/sleeping states are cognized and comes and goes like dust coming and going within a bright sun-lit space.
July 24 at 1:24am · Like · 2
Soh By "eternal" I mean imperturbable.. not in the sense of eternally existing in time (the Advaitins will also tell you it is Timelessly self existing)
July 24 at 1:25am · Like · 1
Justin Struble What I'm discussing isn't Advaita, Soh, it's Dzogchen, and in Dzogchen, our essence / nature isn't eternal, and it isn't inherently existing, it is the inseparable union of clear light and emptiness.
July 24 at 1:25am · Like
Justin Struble Soh, I am curious, are you comparing Dzogchen to Advaita?
July 24 at 1:27am · Like
Soh Not necessarily. I'm just commenting and questioning you based on your descriptions that's all.
July 24 at 1:27am · Like
David Vardy Dzogchen can sometimes sound like Advaita.
July 24 at 1:28am · Like
David Vardy Much of the talk about Rigpa without DO gives that impression.
July 24 at 1:29am · Unlike · 1
Justin Struble Well, Dzogchen is unequivocal in it's assertion of a true nature / essence as far as I see it. And I also think Dzogchen is completely in accord with the emptiness teachings / the rest of the dharma. And I also think that there is a very clear difference between Dzogchen and Advaita, but I would hope this thread doesn't turn into another one of those discussions... ie; Advaita vs Dzogchen.
July 24 at 1:30am · Like
Soh David: So does (some) of Zen, (some) of Theravada, at least from (some of) the teacher's writing...
July 24 at 1:30am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy When Rigpa is seen as a stand alone essence and not the knowing quality associated with what's happening then it tends to sound like Advaita.
July 24 at 1:33am · Unlike · 3
Justin Struble I can see how that can be misunderstood, David, but it's also important to understand that according to Dzogchen our essence is indeed a bare / naked awareness or wakefulness, that does not arise in dependence upon objects. But it is also empty and therefor primordially free from grasping / reification ... ie; in accord with anatta.
If we mistake our nature / essence as someTHING that arises on dependence of objects / causes / conditions then we are missing a key aspect of the realization pointed out in Dzogchen.
July 24 at 1:35am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy The experience is continuous because what's happening is never not happening.
July 24 at 1:36am · Unlike · 1
Justin Struble It is easy to mistake the essence / nature teachings as positing inherent existence, but that is not the case.
July 24 at 1:37am · Unlike · 2
David Vardy It's like a tuning fork that doesn't come to rest. The vibration can't be separated from what's happening.
July 24 at 1:39am · Like
Soh David Vardy: Well said. I've experienced contentless Presence/subtlest clear light in dreamless sleep too (and after anatta all 'happenings' including that, are flat/free of hierarchy)... but imputing it as a metaphysical standalone essence is not necessary. Anatta is realizing there is no background/underlying source and substratum behind the 'mere self-luminous manifestation/happening'.
Dalai Lama:
"In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra...
...***It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is not interrupted…***"
Geoff:
"...For example, Sajjana's Mahayanottaratantrasastropadesa equates tathagatagarbha with luminous mind, and then explains that although this luminous nature is not-conditioned (unlike ordinary states of mind that are contingent upon the four conditions), the luminous nature arises due to the previous moment of that same luminous mind. Shakya Chogden has a similar understanding, stating that although the tathagatagarbha is often said to be permanent, etc., "that is also done in terms of its continuum. Otherwise, [it should] be [understood as] impermanent, precisely because of having an immediately preceding condition [deriving] from [its previous] moment."
July 24 at 1:39am · Edited · Like · 2
David Vardy Any stand alone essence is a background and ultimately conceptual.
July 24 at 1:43am · Like
Soh In 2008 Thusness wrote:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../03/transience.html
The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing.
-------------
There is no this that is more this than that.
Although thought arises and ceases vividly,
Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be.
The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently
Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity.
Although non-dual is seen with clarity,
The urge to remain can still blind subtly.
Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely.
Die utterly
And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.
~ Thusness/Passerby
And hence... "Awareness" is not anymore "special" or "ultimate" than the transient mind.
Awakening to Reality: The Transience
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
July 24 at 1:44am · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Justin Struble In Dzogchen our nature / essence is not a standalone essence or subtratum, but is the very nature of all experience / phenomena / appearances, it is an innately non-dual realization.
July 24 at 1:44am · Edited · Unlike · 2
David Vardy Rigpa is very subtle in one sense because the experience is continuous.
July 24 at 1:44am · Like
Justin Struble Soh, this:
"The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing."
is exactly what i was referring to with the error of clinging to clarity or vividness.
July 24 at 1:47am · Edited · Unlike · 1
Geovani Geo No-thing experiences appearences. Appearences do not experience no-thing.
July 24 at 1:47am · Like
Geovani Geo Take physical space as a simile. An object is non-separable from space nonetheless it is not identical either. Likewise.... seeming appearances are non-separate from "my essence" nonetheless they are not identical.
July 24 at 1:51am · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David wrote:
> When Rigpa is seen as a stand alone essence and not the knowing quality associated with what's happening then it tends to sound like Advaita.
If you could grant a sphere such that nothing can be said to be "happening" and there is no "what", yet there is (total) awakeness, would that qualify as a "conceptual background stand alone essence"?
July 24 at 1:51am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Total Being, not in the western philosophical substantial/essential sense, but in contrast to knowledge—what one 'is', one doesn't need to 'know'.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like
Justin Struble "Dalai Lama:
"In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra...
...***It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is not interrupted…***"
Geoff:
"...For example, Sajjana's Mahayanottaratantrasastropadesa equates tathagatagarbha with luminous mind, and then explains that although this luminous nature is not-conditioned (unlike ordinary states of mind that are contingent upon the four conditions), the luminous nature arises due to the previous moment of that same luminous mind. Shakya Chogden has a similar understanding, stating that although the tathagatagarbha is often said to be permanent, etc., "that is also done in terms of its continuum. Otherwise, [it should] be [understood as] impermanent, precisely because of having an immediately preceding condition [deriving] from [its previous] moment."
this is true from one perspective. however we have to realize that ultimately all appearances are non-arisen, and that means that arising, presenting, and dissolving are illusory impressions, and that applies to the "continuum" of our essence equally to the continuum of all appearances which are likewise non-arisen, and inseparably non-dual.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like
Justin Struble so, we need to understand that arising, presenting, and ceasing are actually conceptual constructs / elaborations / imputations.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like · 2
David Vardy That's often the Advaita argument. Awareness being aware of Awareness.
July 24 at 1:54am · Like
Geovani Geo Waht is is not advaita or buddhist.
July 24 at 1:55am · Like
Justin Struble that deconstruction / understanding just resolves in acknowledging that wisdom / the nature of reality is ultimately inconceivable ... or as John Tan: put it:
"At certain point, the magic of clarity, the effortless spontaneity, the marvelous display, the miraculous activity and the perfection that defies all effort must be fully acknowledged."
July 24 at 1:57am · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David, that's either less sophisticated wisdom, or it is a turn of phrase—there's no such twisting or bending in that sphere; no 'it' 'doing' anything or occupying a position or relation like 'of'.
July 24 at 1:58am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Can that which aknowledges be aknowledged?
July 24 at 1:58am · Like
David Vardy Conceptually it lacks flow Stian.
July 24 at 1:59am · Like
Justin Struble David, Dzogchen clearly points out that Rigpa is indeed non-dual, when our essence / nature is realized, it is self-realized. It does not require mediation of any phenomena or appearances, but can be known directly as bare / naked non-conceptual awakeness / knowingness, aware of itself. An example of this is abiding in rigpa during deep sleep, while no objects are appearing to the mind.
July 24 at 1:59am · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Yes, it lacks flow, which is why it is said to be immutable and synonyms to that effect.
But that only amounts to reification or hypostatization in terms. The living, actual realization resolves that.
July 24 at 2:00am · Edited · Like · 1
Geovani Geo Is not the basic duality non-apparent/apparent -luminosity dissolved as nondual when fully realized?
July 24 at 2:00am · Edited · Like
Justin Struble Another example is realizing clear light at the moment of death.
July 24 at 2:01am · Like
David Vardy Rigpa seems as if it's operating 24-7 but I prefer to veer away from talk concerning deep sleep.
July 24 at 2:01am · Like
Geovani Geo To talk of 24-7 is from a timebound perspective. Gnosis/rigpa is timeless.
July 24 at 2:04am · Edited · Like
David Vardy That's why I don't talk about deep sleep.
July 24 at 2:04am · Like
David Vardy Let deep sleep answer it's own questions..lol
July 24 at 2:05am · Like
Justin Struble David, it is possible to abide in rigpa with no objects / proliferation occuring while "awake" as well.. ultimately there is no difference between abiding in rigpa ( as naked / bare wakefulness ) during deep sleep, or while sitting during the day while "awake".
July 24 at 2:05am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble
July 24 at 2:06am · Like
Geovani Geo The "proof" is that you wake up from it
July 24 at 2:07am · Like
Soh Geovani:
In the experience here there are a couple of realizations...
Realizing self-luminous Awareness or "I AM realization". Awareness aware of itself as just the pure I, self-aware Presence. This is non-dual knowing/being, but then due to not knowing its relation with all appearance, it is seen to be dualistic -- I am I, phenomena are phenomena or objects arising and subsiding within the background of being.
One Mind: non-dual seeing, subject/object collapses into an inseparability where the space of awareness and contents of awareness are seen to be inseparable, but not a two way equivalence. Reflections are the mirror but the mirror is not the reflections. Non-dualistic but inherent view.
Anatta: completely realizing the illusion of a background self behind experience, no longer subject/object inseparability but seeing there is no subject, no agent, no 'the awareness' besides the mere foreground self-luminous manifestation... all qualities of experience, including space, or sound, etc, are purely subjectless manifestation.
As Daniel Ingram wrote before, "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." -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../rigpa-and...
This is just the beginning then later deeper insights into D.O. and emptiness manifests.
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.
July 24 at 2:08am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
David Vardy Did Buddha even speak about deep sleep? If he did I haven't found evidence of it. Soh?
July 24 at 2:09am · Like
Soh " It does not require mediation of any phenomena or appearances"
You define contentless awareness as not a phenomena or appearance, but to me that contentless awareness too is appearance. It may or may not be just a difference of terminologies. There is no subject besides appearance... is the realization of anatta. Seeing contentless awareness as being a substratum (even if it is 'inseparable from appearance') either being always the same throughout all states, or 'modulating itself into various expressions', is substantialism.
July 24 at 2:10am · Edited · Like · 2
Geovani Geo Annata is the realization that the subject can not be referred to in any way.... not that there is no subject. Well..... THIS is beyond subject or object
July 24 at 2:11am · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Not contentless awareness, but simply wakefulness, which is not a subject (though the conviction of just that is indeed a key delusion).
July 24 at 2:13am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble Soh, if you want to call contentless awareness an appearance, that is fine too. I illustrate it in that way as a skillful means, to try and point out that our nature is not something which arises on dependence of objects, or which requires objects appearing, in order to be realized. This is just a means of opposing or deconstructing dualistic views.
July 24 at 2:14am · Edited · Like
David Vardy That's clinging to a duality, Geo.
July 24 at 2:14am · Like
Geovani Geo NOt really, David. The whole luminous apperance is a kind of movement. But movement is aknowledged by non-movement. They are not separate.
July 24 at 2:15am · Like
Justin Struble generally i think of "appearance" as the dualistic experience of "objects" appearing to a "witness".
July 24 at 2:16am · Like
Geovani Geo Seeming appearences are the subject like waves to the ocean.
July 24 at 2:17am · Like
David Vardy Read again what Soh just wrote.
July 24 at 2:17am · Like
Geovani Geo But you can not reduce the ocean to just the waves-field
July 24 at 2:17am · Like
David Vardy There is no subject besides appearance
July 24 at 2:18am · Like
Geovani Geo David, either subject/object duality when there is a conceptualized background.... or JUST the subject which is no other then appearence.
July 24 at 2:20am · Like
Justin Struble Soh, basic wakefulness, is exactly the same in every moment of experience, and in all states, but realizing this, does not imply that it abides separate from those states, that conclusion in itself is based on dualistic views.
July 24 at 2:21am · Like · 1
Geovani Geo But "no other" does not mean identical. Basic wakefulness, lucid space, gnosis, rigpa is not separate from anything.... nonetheless is not identical to the limited field of its own reflection.
July 24 at 2:23am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Take time. Rigpa is/includes time, but you can not say that rigpa is restricted to time.
July 24 at 2:26am · Like
Geovani Geo the same with space, materiality, luminosity...AND appearence.
July 24 at 2:27am · Like
Soh "But you can not reduce the ocean to just the waves-field"
This reminded me of something I wrote before in this group.
Jackson Peterson: Soh, when you are "seeing just the seeing" and "hearing just the heard", is your awareness penetrating through and beyond the heard and seen into infinite space revealing the empty and transparent nature of the "seen" and the "heard"?
November 24, 2013 at 12:31am · Like
Soh: Is this necessary unless one is seeing "something" extra, isn't thought already transparent and empty? Isn't sound already transparent and empty? Aren't dancing sensations already always transparent and empty?
November 24, 2013 at 12:48am · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson: Yes ! But are they dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness?
November 24, 2013 at 1:36am · Like
Soh: No, sensations are not dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness. The vast transparent dimension of pure conscious sensations are dancing about.
November 24, 2013 at 10:07am · Like · 11
July 24 at 2:28am · Like · 2
David Vardy Appearance is free of subject, non dual and non objective in the absence of a subject.
July 24 at 2:30am · Like
Geovani Geo I understood what you mean... but cant agree. The dance can only be aknowledged through/as/by non-dancing.
July 24 at 2:30am · Like
Justin Struble if i said for example, that all sensations / appearances / phenomena, are all equally empty, and one taste. and that the emptiness of those sensations is exactly the same, in nature, not increasing, not decreasing.
i doubt there would be much disagreement with that statement.
in the exact same way, the basic wakefulness of every moment, of all sensations and appearances, of all the various states, is exactly the same in nature throughout, not increasing, not decreasing, and is in fact inseparable from the emptiness nature of all phenomena.
this basic wakefulness and emptiness are inseparable and it is possible to realize basic wakefulness and emptiness nakedly, without any other objects or content appearing to the mind.
July 24 at 2:30am · Edited · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland There's an exhortation here to consider and re-consider the possibility of a resolution of this. Leave the details for later.
I think that receptiveness is key and most important
July 24 at 2:30am · Like
Geovani Geo Stian... just having fun in trying to word it
July 24 at 2:31am · Like
Geovani Geo The emptinnes of sensation/appearence/world is not pointing to some quality of those.... but pointing to the nature of the subject.
July 24 at 2:32am · Like
David Vardy Beautiful Soh.
July 24 at 2:34am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I like to do that, too, ("trying to word it") but part of the resolution is the complete elusiveness
It's so obvious that talking about it reifies and misrepresents.
July 24 at 2:34am · Edited · Like · 2
Geovani Geo OK... let me try this. If appearances/world where identical to their awareness (bi-univocaly)... then how could we wake up from deep sleep? From coma?
July 24 at 2:35am · Edited · Like
David Vardy I can't help thinking of receptacle when I hear receptive Stian...lol
July 24 at 2:36am · Like
David Vardy We don't Geo.
July 24 at 2:37am · Like
Geovani Geo David, yes you are right. I will re-word it. How would appearences re-appear?
July 24 at 2:38am · Like
David Vardy Deep sleep and coma are only third person accounts of an experience which doesn't exist in first person.
July 24 at 2:39am · Like
David Vardy There isn't a reappear. Only appearance
July 24 at 2:39am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Thanks for a stimulating ( ) convo guys. I'm out for now.
July 24 at 2:39am · Like · 2
Geovani Geo Yes, but you know you slept by the clock.. dont you? From say...5 to 7 there was absence of appearences. Then they re-appeared. Where where they in those 2 hours?
July 24 at 2:43am · Edited · Like
David Vardy Only by the clock....
July 24 at 2:42am · Like
David Vardy Rigpa knows no sleep.
July 24 at 2:44am · Like
Geovani Geo .... hard to express this...
July 24 at 2:45am · Like
Geovani Geo Could you put in words where exactly there seems to be a disagreement in our POV? I am not sure I can
July 24 at 2:46am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Just a question DAvid (to stimulate ) With the dissolution of the body/mind/wordl/appearences..... is it the end?
July 24 at 2:48am · Edited · Like
Geovani Geo Or... the ending of time is also the ending of timeless-ness?
July 24 at 2:50am · Like
Soh On 'remainder', someone once wrote:
"it is just clear now how there is an imputation we put on Awareness as being "separate' from experience, as some sort of "stand alone" awareness". I have always experienced awareness as experience inseparably so, but didn't notice the subtle imputation that gives still a separate implication of being a remainder, when all things are absent. Being wouldn't know itself outside of experience. If being did know itself in total voidness, that very "knowing" would itself be an experience, hence the void would not be void. God cannot be separated from creation, because the potential for creation is already Known."
On time, I once wrote:
"Time is just a construct like self. The notion that it takes time for me to walk from point A to B, which implies distance, space and time, deconstructs when we realize there is no atemporal abiding entity or self that is the traveller (this implies I am a truly existing atemporal self that is separate from time/the stream of transient phenomenality, which is not the case). In fact there is not even 'traveling' or 'movement' when Point A is only point A or being-time-A, point B is only point B being-time-B, each instant is whole and complete - there is nothing subjective or objective that is separate from each time-instant that abides and travels from A to B. Where time is being and being is time (things do not occur 'in' or 'pass through' time - they ARE time, as everything is irremediably temporal), there is Only being-time which is the sun and the moon and the stars, wherein there is neither an atemporal object passing through time nor an atemporal subject witnessing or passing through the passage of time and space from one point to another, and neither is it the case of one thing becoming another thing (winter is winter, spring is spring, winter does not turn into spring). Each instance of sight, sound, etc, is an entire and whole being-time independent of past and future (it occupies or IS a unique manifestation-position), yet inclusive of all causes and conditions spanning all time-space in a single moment that transcends the structures of time-object-self dichotomy. Each instant is a happening without movement. Time stops in the midst of temporality but Not by transcending to some unmoved backdrop."
July 24 at 2:55am · Edited · Like · 2
Geovani Geo "Time stops in the midst of temporality but Not by transcending to some unmoved backdrop." Well you can put it in another way: time is an addendum (or restriction) to timelessness. Then again: they are non-separate but not biunivocally identical either
July 24 at 3:01am · Edited · Like
Mr. J.C. "Rigpa is/includes time" Huh? IMO, Rigpa has nothing at all to do with time.
July 24 at 3:02am · Like
Geovani Geo Allow me another simile. Are sub-atomic field (or the subtlest particle ever) and the field of objects identical or non-identical? Because this is almost exactly the case with gnosis and objects/events/appearences
July 24 at 3:06am · Like
Geovani Geo Justin, yes. Nonetheless it "knows" time. It is non-spacial but knows space.
July 24 at 3:08am · Like
Geovani Geo Time-bound castles are constructed with timeless bricks. Are the bricks and the castle identical?
July 24 at 3:09am · Like
Mr. J.C. I think you're over-defining Rigpa.
July 24 at 3:09am · Like
Mr. J.C. Personally, I don't find philosophizing about castles and bricks very conducive to just recognizing this present experience. Others may get more entertainment out of such things and thats cool.
July 24 at 3:10am · Like
Geovani Geo I am just trying to use words to something that is my essential nature. Trying to point to that which is absolutely nor referable.
July 24 at 3:10am · Like
Soh There are two ways to see timelessness. You may see 'something' as timeless. I see manifestation is timeless. Time, self, objects is constructed out of timeless bricks -- which is manifestation.
.............
Thusness in 2009:
I think realization and development will eventually reach the same destination.
A practitioner that experience the “Self” will initially treat
1.The “Source as the Light of Everything”.
then
2. He/she will eventually move to the experience that the “Light is really the Everything”.
In the first case, the Light will appear to be still and the transience appears to be moving. Collapsing of space and time will only be experienced when one resides in Self. However if the mind continues to see the 'Light' as separated from the 'Everything' , then realization will appear to be apart from development.
In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point.
However what has a yogi overcome when moving from case 1 to 2 and what exactly is the cause of separation in the first place? I think realizing this cause is of utmost importance for solving the paradox of realization and development.
July 24 at 3:11am · Edited · Like · 4
Geovani Geo Justin, philosophy may be in hte readers mind alone.
July 24 at 3:11am · Like
Geovani Geo Soh... I fully understand your point.
July 24 at 3:14am · Like
Soh The very idea that consciousness knows things is what is deconstructed through anatta and dependent origination and emptiness.
Piya Tan wrote: "Although in our daily language, it is common to speak of "knowing," “feeling,” "cognizing," or "perceiving" sense-objects, in the syntax of dependent arising, one does not really experience anything -- it simply is the experience that arises when the requisite conditions are present."
http://www.purifymind.com/EcologyMind.htm
- Although it is common to speak of cognitive awareness as if it actively cognizes objects, in the syntax of dependent arising cognitive awareness does not actually cognize anything—it simply is the awareness which arises when the requisite conditions come together.10 Vasubandhu, author of the fifth-century Abhidharma-kos'a, makes precisely this point:
The su-tra teaches: "By reason of the organ of sight and of visible matter there arises the visual consciousness": there is not there either an organ that sees, or visible matter that is seen; there is not there any action of seeing, nor any agent that sees; this is only a play of cause and effect. In the light of [common] practice, one speaks, metaphorically, of this process: "The eye sees, and the consciousness discerns." But one should not cling to these metaphors.11
In other words, to interpret vijña-na as an act of cognition rather than an occurrence of cognitive awareness is to ignore the syntax of dependent arising, which takes no active subject. Once again, the traditional Buddhist denial of a substantive, unchanging entity may be seen as less a metaphysical position than a function of its mode of analysis.12
Cognition, in these terms, is thus neither purely subjective nor wholly objective. Like a transaction that takes place between individuals, cognitive awareness occurs at the interface, the concomitance of a sense-organ and its correlative stimulus. Cognitive awareness is thus also neither an exact "mirror of nature" which reflects things "as they are"—since what constitutes an "object" is necessarily defined by the capacities of a particular sense organ; nor is it a unilateral projection of a priori categories—since the cognitive capacities of a sense organ are also correlatively defined by the kinds of stimuli that may impinge upon them. This entails a number of important implications, for discerning cognitive awareness is not only an event that occurs temporally, but one which equally depends upon relational distinctions—and relational distinctions are hardly substances.
Buddhist steps to an ecology of mind
www.purifymind.com
This essay explores such possibilities by focusing upon two core concepts, the d... See More
July 24 at 3:14am · Like · Remove Preview
Geovani Geo Ah.. but cognitive awareness is already a construction! this is why the word "awareness" at this point is useless. Let me try this then: is there only movement?
July 24 at 3:17am · Like
Soh Movement implies an entity abiding somewhere, coming from an origin, and a place it will go to. Transience is purely manifestation. We can look into its nature. Does the burning flame come from somewhere or go somewhere? Seamless dependencies, transient fire, vivid dream-like appearance... no coming or going.
July 24 at 3:20am · Edited · Like
Soh Also: movement requires a vantagepoint of an 'observer' to which movement, speed, can be measured. That vantagepoint itself should be scrutinized. Two cars going in the same speed doesn't see each other as moving, only two cars going at different speeds, or one car being stationary will perceive another car as moving. What if there is no one car observing another?
July 24 at 3:22am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble "In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point."
.....
"There are two ways to see timelessness. You may see 'something' as timeless. I see manifestation is timeless. Time, self, objects is constructed out of timeless bricks -- which is manifestation."
Great post Soh, some of these things are resolved in my experience in a certain way:
"Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment."
yes! this is what non-arisen is like ime. everything with this realization is known as one taste. maturing / deepening of this realization should therefore result in the following:
arising, abiding, and ceasing are seen as illusory imputations, and from this, we realize that sensations or appearances being constructed of "timeless bricks" is also an illusory imputation, THERE ARE NO BRICKS! no pixels. no individual sensations! these phenomena are seen through. to continue seeing sensations / manifestation as timeless bricks is still an inherent view!
instead there is illusory appearances but they are always recognized in terms of their not moving and their nature as being empty, unobstructed, and luminous without increase or decrease. this is the all equality wisdom.
July 24 at 3:27am · Edited · Unlike · 1
Soh Your 'illusory appearance' is what I meant by 'manifestation'. Not to imply substance-view.. timeless bricks can be quite misleading
July 24 at 3:41am · Edited · Like · 1
Justin Struble since phenomena / sensations / manifestation ( illusory appearances )* have never actually arisen, abided, or ceased, it doesn't make sense to say the empty, luminous nature has ever moved as some substantial substance to generate them, especially since the nature is itself clearly known as empty / insubstantial.
July 24 at 3:41am · Edited · Like
David Vardy "Enlightenment is living beyond measure" J. Krishnamurti. Without deconstructing living, just accepting it as simply what's happening in the absence of an agent I think this quote is quite elegant. It goes beyond an ontology and represents more a soteriological position. Freedom from duality.
July 24 at 3:51am · Like
David Vardy Movement is not experienced. It's imagined.
July 24 at 3:57am · Like · 1
Justin Struble indeed. without the conceptions of movement; ie arising, abiding, and ceasing, and without any objects or phenomena which inherently exist to move, so too must one abandon the conception of "transience".
July 24 at 3:58am · Edited · Like
David Vardy The 'self' is a complete package in some respects. Without space and time it doesn't 'stand a chance'. Even as 'absence' it requires space and time as an extension of itself.
July 24 at 4:09am · Like
Kyle Dixon Coarse transience (entities arising and ceasing) is seen through, but there is also subtle transience which is the disjoint nature of non-arising manifestation.
July 24 at 4:10am · Unlike · 1
David Vardy Coming and going versus expanding and contracting?
July 24 at 4:26am · Like
Kyle Dixon Lack of linking or continuity in appearance. Without a core or essence to bind apparent instances of manifestation to one another each apparent instance is unique and unrelated.
July 24 at 4:48am · Like · 2
Mr. J.C. Kyle Dixon - for me, what you just wrote is the key difference in suffering vs not suffering.
July 24 at 4:53am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I re-read the discussion, and I'm liking the whole thing. But something still bugs me.
I don't want to claim that I thoroughly understand "awareness is simply manifestation", because as far as I know, I've not had the anatta realization spoken of. But seeing how often this comes up and how much has been written on it here (which I've read), can I at least say that I kinda get it?
This thing about 'sensations' is bugging me and so is the notion of 'manifestation'. As I said, I kinda get the "no awareness aside from manifestation", but why is manifestation left here?
I really liked that quote about 'remainder'—very succinct and precise. And what bugs me is that there is 'remainder' in "no awareness aside from manifestation", and that's "manifestation"/"sensations"/"foreground".
I think quietly to myself that this is sign of lack of realization of emptiness.
This 'sphere' I'm talking about, which I might unfortunately have too unequivocally called awareness, is such that all *signification* is completely gone: signlessness. This signlessness is the knife's edge upon which appearance and emptiness is immaculately, ineffably balanced (but fully realizable).
In my experience, when the time comes to try and express this, formulate it, I'm but left with a negation of manifestation. Not that that's what it's *really* like, but when I'm pressed to formulate it, that's what it comes out as.
There is no seeing, no hearing, no sensing—never mind whether that's with or without a witnessing subject! Not because there is NO seeing/hearing/sensing, but because the seeing/hearing/sensing is utterly, entirely, totally *insignificant*. For all practical intents and purposes it is non-existent, though it does go on (which is yet again saying too much).
What is left there—what *seems* to be significant—is what is so cleverly formulated as "the clear light". Now how can a 'clear' light be significant? It pretty much amounts to nothing at all... and I think that is as good a place as any to end this
July 24 at 6:40am · Edited · Like · 1
David Vardy 'Manifesting' as 'such' what could possibly be manifest? Manifestation doesn't exist as such.
July 24 at 6:48am · Like
Justin Struble "Not because there is NO seeing/hearing/sensing, but because the seeing/hearing/sensing is utterly, entirely, totally *insignificant*. For all practical intents and purposes it is non-ARISING* ( free from extremes of existence / non-existence ), though is does go on (which is yet again saying too much)."
yes i think to formulate things in terms of foreground / manifestations / sensations is to lean slightly towards emphasizing anatta while not quite emphasizing emptiness of phenomena clearly enough. so it's like a slightly distorted version of two-fold emptiness.
and while i don't think those describing things in that way necessarily hold inherent views in terms of sensations / manifestation / foreground, it could easily be misunderstood that way.
the same is true when utilizing "transience". transience, whether coarse or subtle, implies a duality, in that it implies that there is an ACTUAL multiplicity of phenomena / sensations, and that is based on some sense of duality and thus inherent view(s).
from one perspective subtle "transience" ie; disjointedness is a useful way to describe the primordial freedom of emptiness / dependent origination, totally unhindered, unobstructed, not locked into any sort of determinism or substantialism.
but on the other hand transience under any normal interpretation implies phenomena which actually arise, abide, and cease. which again is based on views of multiplicity, duality, etc...
if we want to use transience as a skillful means maybe we could balance it with the quality of seamlessness ... which is like another way of describing signlessness. the dharmadhatu is like a seamless expanse / wholeness.. and it doesn't make sense to describe it in terms of a multiplicity of individual parts / phenomena.
July 24 at 6:51am · Edited · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland The phantasmagoria, David. As far as I can make out, from the "no awareness apart from manifestation" there is still boatloads of imputation upon the phantasmagoria. For example as distinguished streams of sense (that's a major one), and more as Justin pointed out
July 24 at 6:53am · Edited · Like
David Vardy Jump in the stream and the current is seen to be what seeing is. It's not passive at all. There's no sitting on the banks and watching it go by. Peace is found 'as' the flow, not apart from it; as time, not 'in' the concept of timelessness. Nothing is seen in seeing and as such nothing arises, becomes anything.
July 24 at 6:56am · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Justin, I tried to clarify "non-arising" as "gaplessness" (i.e. seamlessness) on another thread. Got no likes
July 24 at 6:59am · Like · 1
Justin Struble
July 24 at 6:59am · Like
David Vardy "f we want to use transience as a skillful means maybe we could balance it with the quality of seamlessness ... which is like another way of describing signlessness. the dharmadhatu is like a seamless expanse / wholeness.. and it doesn't make sense to describe it in terms of a multiplicity of individual parts / phenomena." The scenes change and the characters are not named to protect the innocent.....lol
July 24 at 7:00am · Like
Justin Struble haha
July 24 at 7:00am · Like
David Vardy Yeah. Disjoint / gaplessness.....tough bedfellows, or maybe just a very tight bed.
July 24 at 7:02am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland David, I really dig and I get that. Going into dharma, for me there was already a big momentum towards precisely that expression of freedom, i.e. "peace 'as' the flow". Now, it seems distinct from, and honestly less complete than, "the clear light".
July 24 at 7:02am · Edited · Like
David Vardy Clear light is definitely 'awe inspiring'.
July 24 at 7:03am · Like
Justin Struble all we can really do is try and point experientially. language and description will always fall short, map != territory. can't fully capture the inconceivable with limited concepts / language.
July 24 at 7:04am · Like
David Vardy In the absence of flow, luminosity appears to go unnoticed. It's like the circuit is closed and the light isn't on.
July 24 at 7:06am · Like
David Vardy Nor is there the experience of surge, as if thought is a surge protector.
July 24 at 7:07am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland See, I would only describe it as "awe inspiring" if I saw it as substantial and precious, which is what most want from 'awareness'.
The completeness I mean to convey is total renunciation. It's a lack, a losing of everything, impossible to keep. Nothing left, and by that I mean nothing left by which to hold on, grasp, cling, sustain, etc. It's a totally bad deal; nothing to gain, everything to lose.
One can't even be said to know it—no attainment.
July 24 at 7:10am · Edited · Like
David Vardy It leaves imagination kind of at a cliff's edge. Thought stops there knowing it's inconceivable. There's little room for imagination when what's going on appears as packed as it is.
July 24 at 7:28am · Like
David Vardy Stian Gudmundsen Høiland "I tried to clarify "non-arising" as "gaplessness" (i.e. seamlessness) on another thread." Are you suggesting that because of seamlessness objects cannot be complete enitites, lacking inherency?
July 24 at 7:35am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Amongst its meanings, non-arising denotes the lack of actual delimitation of objects and events, essentially their not having a point-instant* of arising, then a continuum of point-instances of staying, then a point-instant of cessation. This was discussed in this thread as "transience".
Gaplessness takes away the structure of this kind of imputation, by making the same point—no dividing lines or gaps.
Intuitively this might lead one toward the 'non-differentiating wisdom' that Justin mentioned earlier.
* point-instant: a unit comprising a unified measurement of space (point) and of time (instant).
July 24 at 8:04am · Edited · Like
Justin Struble seeing phenomena as entities / objects is analogous to believing that your reflection in a mirror is actually a solid, substantial object of it's own.
in actuality there is no object there, just an appearance. and that appearance never actually arises, abides, or ceases, because it never actually existed in the first place.
July 24 at 7:43am · Like
David Vardy Yes of course. I was trying to understand what he meant by non-arising and gaplessness. What are you referring to as gaplessness. Btw. gotta go for now.
July 24 at 7:46am · Like
Justin Struble when all imputation and compounding ceases, and the Dharmadhatu is revealed as two-fold emptiness, experience is of a whole other order. not only does compounding of a self collapse, but the projection of 3-dimensional space with objects / phenomena "out there" also collapses, into a zero or hyper-dimensional sort of wholeness.
In otherwords "manifestation" as "foreground" collapses. yet this wholeness is not static or fixed, it is alive with the dynamic power of compassion.
there are many ways to describe the appearance of dynamic movement without proposing individual, discrete, entities / objects in order to illustrate it. one common analogy is waves & water. another is einstein's space-time manifold, and there are many more.
i just think whenever we formulate these things in terms of description which use a multiplicity of objects / phenomena / sensations etc, we necessarily introduce distortion. that doesn't mean they can't be used skillfully as skillful means though.
July 24 at 7:55am · Edited · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Dude, yes. So why is there an apparent rift in the community here?
July 24 at 7:58am · Like
Justin Struble *shrug*
July 24 at 7:59am · Like
Justin Struble most education systems ( and especially western education ) very thoroughly condition people to think of and analyze the world in terms of discrete units. atoms, molecules, units of measure, etc etc. most of our science is based on this approach of trying to dissect reality and reduce it to it's basic "parts".
this same sort of approach gets applied quite a lot in the dharma, and it can be quite beneficial and skillful up to a point, but it breaks down as a useful model once we approach teachings and experience of non-duality.
July 24 at 8:03am · Edited · Like
Justin Struble additionally, the english language is based around and structured according to the same mindset and method, so it is further entrenched in the very structure of our language.
one scientist ( the physicist david bohm ) found this to be such an impediment for describing certain higher order concepts in physics that he created a whole different mode of language he called the "rheomode" for describing certain aspects of his theories in physics, in his book "wholeness and the implicate order".
July 24 at 8:07am · Like
Justin Struble http://www.biroz.net/words/irsonos.htm
Irsonos : Towards A Quantum Language Of Non-Differentiation
www.biroz.net
Irsonos : Towards A Quantum Language Of Non-Differentiation
July 24 at 8:11am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Justin Struble So, what I'm getting at in summary is we are using a language that is based on, and has in it's very structure the process of differentiation. As long as we use english conventionally, it will contain these implicit aspects of differentiating. And as long as that is happening, we may think the language others are using is implying certain types of discriminations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83j%C3%B1%C4%81
We have essentially enthroned the skandha of descrimination in the structure of our language, which makes it even more difficult to renounce. lol And that leads to all sorts of endless misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and especially, difficulty in discussing that which is undifferentiated.
The Dharmadhatu is undifferentiated, signless, seamless, etc.. and this makes conventional english quite unsuitable for describing it.
Sa?jña - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sa?jña (Sanskrit; Pali: sañña) is a Buddhist term that is typically translated a... See More
July 24 at 8:23am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
John Tan Hi Mr. J.C., "Kyle Dixon - for me, what you just wrote is the key difference in suffering vs not suffering." Why is it the "key"?
July 24 at 8:53am · Like
Mr. J.C. Sometimes I can be in any mind state and there is no suffering.
At other times, if the tendency toward mental chatter is strong AND there is an assumption of solidity or connection between moments, then there can be a subject that becomes stuck and cannot see itself.
When the field of experience is utterly transient and slippery, there is no place for the subject to land so there is no suffering.
July 24 at 9:01am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. When I've been practicing consistently the mind gets sharper and is able to notice the start of clinging and just lets it go.
But inevitability the mind gets lazy because there is no problem and eventually lapses back into clinging.
Part of this is a conscious choice because I find I can emotionally connect with others better when I allow a bit of suffering.
July 24 at 9:07am · Like · 1
John Tan Ic…Thanks for the explanation, Justin.
I asked because in the past, u mentioned about the experience of non-dual awareness and u r focusing on that but what u said now is related more to a taste of “freedom” that arises from the realization of a lack of linking essence.
These 2 realization -- “the magic of clarity” and “unbinding”, very often require 2 separate pointing, that is, the direct pointing of one’s clarity (????) and the further pointing out that even this clarity is empty and ungraspable(?????.)
The former is a taste of a leap from a mechanical process mind intellect into the unmade pristineness.
The later is a breaking loose, a release, a let go of its own nature into the moment of natural condition due to the realization that the need of a linking essence is unnecessary.
If possible I would like to hear from you how u understand them, is the teaching of “unbinding” aim to affirm the unmade clarity, how they are related (or are they) and how does the 2 relate to suffering?
July 24 at 10:01am · Unlike · 2
David Vardy It's essentially a spiritual Catch-22......lol
July 24 at 10:10am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. Thank you for your ideas John Tan. Your description sounds similar to how my path has progressed.
At first, I received pointing out of "Awareness" and there was enormous bliss, clarity, and brightness. There was a shift in identify from the old "I am the thinker" to "I am Awareness". This was okay most of the time, but then there would be some terrible suffering as there was seeking to identify as Awareness 24/7. Any time the experience of "Awareness" wasn't perfect, there was suffering.
Later, around the time I had anatta realization, there was a realization that this "linking essence" was exactly correlated with suffering. When the "linking essence" or "self-that-connects-moments" was not there, there was no suffering.
July 24 at 10:24am · Unlike · 2
Mr. J.C. Later, I decided that even suffering was okay, so having an experience of continuity was okay. I let this go for quite a while and then eventually it became NOT okay so I started practicing again to clear it up.
July 24 at 10:25am · Unlike · 2
Mr. J.C. So, yes, I agree that "magic of clarity" and "unbinding" do seem to be two separate phases.
July 24 at 10:26am · Unlike · 2
Mr. J.C. By the way, your teaching via Soh's blog was very important in showing me that I was stuck in "I am Awareness". I am very grateful for that. Thank you.
July 24 at 10:28am · Unlike · 2
John Tan Hi Mr. J.C.,
Don’t say that...I am merely blahing…really.......just some casual sharing…
To me,
A shift from conceptuality to non-conceptuality is not freedom.
A shift from appearance to clarity/awareness is not freedom.
A shift from the conditioned to the unconditioned is not freedom.
It is simply a movement from one extreme to another extreme, they came from the same cause that “blinds and binds”.
The “lack of linking essence” however is a precious insight and provides the foundation that led to a further refinement of one’s understanding of empty and non-arising wisdom that allows one to release from oscillating both poles.
Taking the attempt to sustain Awareness 24/7 for example,
The wisdom that releases is not to sustain or affirm an Awareness in the 3 states.
In sleeping, it is not to maintain the light of awareness in sleep but rather to release one from the grasping tendencies so that one relaxes into the natural condition of “sleeping” -- in sleeping, sleep.
In dreaming, it is not to maintain the light of awareness in dreams but rather to release one from the grasping tendencies into the natural condition of “dreams”, so the grasping tendencies isn’t present in dreams.
Let unbinding be unbinding. One does not unbind so as to affirm clarity; if we hold on too tightly to clarity, we may not be able to fully appreciate and intuit the quintessence of unbinding wisdom. The wisdom of unbinding releases one to the natural state of what is, be it clarity or appearance, be it waking, dreaming or sleeping.
July 24 at 11:17am · Edited · Unlike · 6
David Vardy Non-volitional living isn't a means to an end. It's the Way.
July 24 at 11:50am · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle What is meant by not linking experiences? I think I have an idea from your post above but I am probably wrong
In the simplest English please I am quite a dummy
July 24 at 11:52am · Edited · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle Of course, you don't Have to explain at all, so I'm very greatful for whatever answer I get if any
July 24 at 12:02pm · Like
Mr. J.C. I've never heard anyone say this before. This is fantastic: "In sleeping, it is not to maintain the light of awareness in sleep but rather to release one from the grasping tendencies so that one relaxes into the natural condition of “sleeping” -- in sleeping, sleep."
July 24 at 12:02pm · Like · 2
Justin Struble it is impossible to "maintain" clear light ... clear light is the natural condition always, and is naturally, spontaneously present, whether awake, sleeping, or dreaming, and is recognized so long as ignorance / grasping is not obscuring it. so, clear light of awareness is spontaneously present as the natural condition of sleep always, and with stability in the view that is not defiled by ignorance and grasping, is recognized throughout sleep as well.*
July 24 at 12:05pm · Edited · Like
David Vardy Release of the grasping tendency is behind all realization at whatever stage. We are drawn back to the insights in spite of our tendency to grasp. It becomes a vicious circle, amplified seeking in the absence of relaxation.
July 24 at 12:08pm · Like
Mr. J.C. Stuffs RedTurtle - Is there a feeling of continuity from one moment to the next? Does it feel like there is a "glue" that is holding it all together? Is the idea of that glue becoming unbound absolutely terrifying in the sense that reality may just fall apart without that glue?
This is maybe not the best description, but its an attempt.
July 24 at 12:10pm · Edited · Like · 2
Justin Struble our habitual tendencies, & ignorance, grasping, aversion, etc.. are acted out in dreaming, and even deep sleep as well, deep sleep can be obscured by very deep ignorance / unknowing / aversion just as waking and dreaming can.
July 24 at 12:11pm · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle Yes.. Doing that noting practice gets frightening. I can't find myself in any of the noted aggregates.. But there is still a sense of me.. But when I start to analyze where I might be in immediate experience, and find no self in thoughts perception sight sound etc.. I feel terror
The only thing that I still have a very strong sense of me ( when doing noting or "these are not self" in is the background perceiver..
I am afraid to touch that in honesty
July 24 at 12:16pm · Like · 1
Stuffs RedTurtle While not engaged in that practice just feel like a regular person though
July 24 at 12:17pm · Like
Stuffs RedTurtle Thank you justin
July 24 at 12:23pm · Like
Mr. J.C. "The only thing that I still have a very strong sense of me ( when doing noting or "these are not self" in is the background perceiver..
I am afraid to touch that in honesty"
Absolutely. It feels like if you go there you may die, right?
July 24 at 12:24pm · Like · 2
Stuffs RedTurtle Yes!! The terror is bad!!!
July 24 at 12:25pm · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. So, the OP is two techniques that I use to make that perceiver disappear. The reality pixels is very gentle and unscary and basically distracts to the point that you don't notice that the perceiver isn't there.
Clear seeing is having absolute willingness to look clearly at whatever is there, even if it may kill you. There are times when I've been unable to face the terror, and other times, when my concentration is good that I was ready to face whatever consequences to know the truth.
July 24 at 12:26pm · Like · 2
Soh Justin Struble:
Emphasizing only on 'undifferentiated' and negating 'multiplicity' can prevent one from looking deeply into anatta and D.O., as well as what Mahamudra calls "one taste", especially greater one taste.
For example in the Mahamudra teachings, although certain insights into emptiness and non-arising has already arisen in the Yoga of Simplicity, it is not only until the Yoga of One Taste that these realizations manifest:
(Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal)
"One Taste also has three stages. The lesser One Taste is when you have realized that all thoughts and perceptions are of one taste in being the Mahamudra of mind essence. However, you still retain a bind: the conviction of savoring and clinging to that.
The medium One Taste is when this tarnish has dissolved: the conviction of savoring and clinging to multiplicity as being one taste. You have actualized the resplendent indivisibility of perceptions and mind in which the perceived is not held as being outside and mind is not held as being inside.
The greater One Taste is when you realize multiplicity as being of one taste and you experience one taste as being multiplicity. Thus, everything subsides into the original state of equality.
...
Here are the distinctions as to whether or not perfection in One Taste has been reached:
You have seen the essence of One Taste if, free from accepting or rejecting, confirming or denying anything perceived, you have recognized the original state of equality as an objectless natural awareness. You have not seen the essence if you still cling to the conviction that savors this equality in terms of something to be mingled and a mingling with it.
You have perfected the strength of One Taste if whatever you encountered as the expression of this original state of equality. ***You have not perfected its strength if one taste isn't experienced as multiplicity because of retaining the bind of a remedy.***
Your thoughts have become meditation if all dualistic clinging, including mind and the perceived, etc. has dissolved. Hence -- free from the sense of being bound or released in the six types of impressions -- it is all right to let whatever appears appear. They have not become meditation if you need to liberate the impressions with a reminder to recognized.
The qualities have arisen if, after mingling mind and perceptions, you have attained miraculous powers, such as being able to conjure and multiply. The qualities have not arisen if the signs fail to appear due to the inducing circumstances of the path being feeble.
You have planted the seed of the form-bodies if all-embracing compassion occurs effortlessly and the treasure-mine of benefitting others has opened. You have not planted this if the power of means, such as compassion, is weak and if you do not accomplish the benefit of others.
***You will attain mastery over the relative state if you have become skilled in causation. This means you can separate samsara and nirvana by experiencing the immediacy of awareness because of clearly realizing the dependent connection between causes and effects. You have not attained this mastery if you do not experience one taste as being the causation of multiplicity.***"
I think the last paragraph is especially important.
In "Mahamudra: the Moonlight" by the same author, he explains:
"The meditator has gained perfect insight into apparent reality if he knows how to differentiate samsara and nirvana in a single momentary vision of awareness and is certain of the efficacy of karma. He has gained this insight by cognizing emptiness, [the intrinsic nature of all things,] as the basis of dynamic cause and effect and by understanding clearly their interrrelationship and interaction. He has not gained such perfect insight into apparent reality if he has not realized emptiness through the interaction of diverse causes and effects."
This is why as Thusness and I have often said, one must realize non-arising from Dependent Origination and not solely through looking at it from 'emptiness'. Also, Loppon Malcolm have also rightly pointed out, emptiness not understood from dependent origination is not the Buddhist sort of emptiness. By looking into D.O., one will progress in one taste and will start to experience Maha and total exertion.
In my experience, the realization of anatta was important to bring about the collapse of Single Oneness (the undifferentiated field of One Mind) into direct taste of diverse forms: "The great level of one flavor is reached when the meditator realizes how the awareness of one flavor manifests itself in diverse forms and how these appearances and existences are of one flavor in primordial evenness. Prior to this the meditator realized the one flavor of all the diverse things."
Then looking into D.O. becomes very important. Of course, by diverse form we do not mean anything truly existing... just the diverse illusory appearance with a single taste.
Related: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../putting-aside...
Awakening to Reality: Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold Emptiness
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
July 24 at 4:08pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Soh I think it is important to understand the context of what John Tan is saying, i.e. why is he telling us to separate Presence and the 2 Fold Emptiness?
This is important because if we do not separate them, then emptiness becomes a form of affirming negation. It becomes no different from the Advaita's neti neti technique of dissociating from phenomena to realize the substrate of Pure Consciousness. It is using negation to affirm Awareness.
Emptiness is not like that. Emptiness of inherent existence applies to every phenomena, to self, and also to Awareness. By realizing the emptiness of inherent existence in all these, Self, Awareness, Phenomena are released. There is not a denial of Awareness but a release from reifying and clinging to Awareness. It is a non-affirming negation.
This is why we must let unbinding be unbinding, let clarity be clarity. Experience both, then unbind clarity.
July 24 at 5:31pm · Edited · Like · 3
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Further on in Clarifying the Natural State, regarding the next stage of practice and realization called Nonmeditation, we find passages like:
"Greater Nonmeditation is when even this subtle dualistic consciousness transforms into original wakefulness, yeshe. Everything is simply an overarching state of original wakefulness."
"You have perfected the strength of Nonmeditation if the subtlest dualistic perception has dissolved and you have brought all phenomena to the state of exhaustion, so you are always indivisible from original wakefulness. You have not perfected its strength if you experience even the slightest dualistic perception and you have not exhausted the phenomena of knowable objects."
"Your thoughts have become meditation if every instance of all-ground consciousness, without being rejected, has dissolved into being dharmadhatu wisdom." (This pertains to the non-differentiating wisdom mentioned earlier.)
"At the time of medium Nonmeditation, even this most subtle dualistic perception, which is like a magical illusion, dissolves and you become uninterrupted in the state of nonmeditation throughout day and night." (This pertains to the clear light permeating the three states.)
"At the time of greater Nonmeditation, this extremely subtle trait of thoughtless nonrecognition dissolves into original wakefulness so that the mother and child luminosities intermingle. Everything is now the all-encompassing expanse of original wakefulness so that—for the benefit of yourself—you attain dharmakaya in completeness."
"Generally speaking, a state of nonmeditation that is the mere absence of meditator, meditation object and the act of meditating also occurs during Simplicity. During One Taste there is also a state of nonmeditation that is merely to experience the freshness of thought and perceptions followed by a going beyond meditative composure and postmeditation. These are not the real state of Nonmeditation, but rather the meditation-mood of nonmeditation."
"Thus, bring yourself to the level of exhaustion of concepts and phenomena."
*
As far as I gather, Dzogchen-as-praxis is primarily concerned with this last of the four yogas of Mahamudra called Nonmeditation (but implements gradations of the path and corresponding techniques that are similar and sometimes overlapping.)
July 24 at 9:42pm · Edited · Like · 1
Piotr Ludwinski No, it isn't.
July 24 at 9:39pm · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Soh said:
> This is why we must let unbinding be unbinding, let clarity be clarity. Experience both, then unbind clarity.
If you flip the order here (which seems to be the initial intention), this is an interesting correspondence to the four yogas of Mahamudra, where the first one is (in some treatments) basically samatha, the second is vipassana, the third is the unification of those two. Then there's the fourth.
July 24 at 9:42pm · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Soh wrote:
> In my experience, the realization of anatta was important to bring about the collapse of Single Oneness (the undifferentiated field of One Mind) into direct taste of diverse forms
This "Single Oneness", in terms of the four yogas scheme, sounds to me not like the stage that emphasizes "original wakefulness" as non-differentiated reality (the forth called Nonmeditation), but the stage called One-Pointedness: the first stage.
The first stage is sometimes presented as 'stillness'. The second as 'movement'. The third as the integration of both stillness and movement. Then there's the fourth.
July 24 at 9:50pm · Edited · Like
Piotr Ludwinski Four yogas merely adress progress on the path i.e. exhaustion of cognitive and emotional obscurations (coarse ans subtle) from practicioner's side. In both dzogchen and mahamudra basis is moment of unconditioned clarity (tib. shes pa skad gcig ma). The difference lies in path... In mahamudra it's two stages which are means to eliminate twin obscurations. In dzogchen actual path is thodgal. Progress on path that mahamudra fourth yoga denote in terms of dzogchen is encountered by those whose thodgal practice is fourth vision.
July 24 at 10:12pm · Edited · Like
Justin Struble Great Posts, Soh, and Stian. Thanks!
July 24 at 11:45pm · Edited · Like · 2
Soh Stian, there are so many Dzogchen masters that reiterated one taste with statements such as,
"It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor." -- Padmasambhava
Shabkar, and many others, made basically the same statements. It's almost like a textbook stock phrase in Dzogchen as well as Mahamudra.
July 25 at 12:33am · Edited · Like
David Vardy "It is not created as......." seems like an odd way of expressing that.
July 25 at 12:59am · Like
Soh Malcolm: "Are all phenomena "one" in that they are all empty? Of course. Is there some existent underlying fabric that unifies all phenomena? Not in Buddhadharma. In Hinduism of various stripes, definitely, but not Buddhadharma."
"Is this pure consciousness single or multiple? If it is the former, it is susceptible to all of the faults of Advaita. Also things are luminously clear, so why restrict this to mind?"
"Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions."
"I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap.
Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light."
Enochian asked: "In the finality of Dzogchen, one sees the 5 wisdoms lights everywhere. Everything is the five lights, which are recognized as oneself.
How is this not monism?"
Malcolm replied: "There are five lights, not one, correct? Plus one knows the minds of others correct? So how can this be monism?"
July 25 at 3:55am · Edited · Like · 2
David Vardy I would change the Padmasamhava quote to....There isn't a single entity even though there is a single flavor present and clear in terms of many. There appears to be a multiplicity of things, but they are inseparable and of a single flavor.
July 25 at 4:04am · Unlike · 1
Mr. J.C. Soh - what do you mean by "then unbind clarity"?
July 25 at 6:17am · Like
Soh For example, having an image of clarity as something always so inherently and changelessly -- so that one tries to abide in that 24/7 through returning again and again to the captured image of awareness. That is caging clarity, and prevents release into the 'natural state' of whatever is when condition is. Some people may try to sustain a state of witnessing throughout sleep, which is not releasing into the natural state and having deep attachment to a particular face of clarity seen to be inherent, so one wants to hold on to it and wants to 'be' that particular state all the time. This causes insomnia as a lot of energy is tied up in holding onto a deemed purest state of clarity due to attachment. One tries to transcend the three states (or 'be the transcedent turiya beyond all states') rather than let each condition be, or be each condition, or allow it to reveal its true face and nature.
Unbind clarity means release the caging or fixating of clarity into something. Fixating on a particular face of clarity. As I said years ago after a meditation, "Every moment is an encounter of my thousand faces. The sound of thunder, every drop of rain, every heart beat, every breath, every thought. Experience, experience, experience, experience!" -- https://www.facebook.com/notes/soh-wei-yu/a-thousand-faces/10152352904760226 . The same goes to sleeping, dying, etc. Thusness also said to Goose recently: "Empty clarity has a thousand faces, every face is brilliance and new."
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:51pm UTC+08
Don't cage mind's clarity into anything...after ur insights, mature by tasting it.
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:52pm UTC+08
Fully empty in both background and foreground. Self sprung appearance is lucid and empty.
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:54pm UTC+08
It is just one great open spaciousness of empty evanescence appearances.
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:54pm UTC+08
Holographic voidness
John TanFriday, February 21, 2014 at 9:58pm UTC+08
If self sprung appearance is natural and liberating but lack a reverence and compassionate heart, then u must practice metta.
....
April '14
Taste the Breadth and Depth of Empty Clarity
Thusness wrote to me:
Taste the breadth and depth of empty clarity
Free this immediate experience from all definitions;
Free this immediate experience from all boundaries;
Free this immediate experience from all inherent solidity;
Without the ghost image of a backdrop and absence of essence in the foreground, then whatever arises is free and liberating.
Spontaneous and naturally perfected.
You can only recognize the taste, never fixate any idea or image of instant presence
A Thousand Faces
Every moment is an encounter of my thousand faces. The sound of thunder, every d... See More
By: Soh
July 25 at 6:44am · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
No comments:
Post a Comment