Posts
[1:06 PM, 9/26/2020] John Tan: Once u clearly see logically how reified constructs from conventions create confusions and mistake conventions as truly real existence, u will also understand how cause and effect based on agency and action cannot b established. However that does not deny vivid appearances and functionalities. If u see that, then there is nothing to argue about so I cannot understand the y u like to keep engaging in idle talks. Also what is the taste of these deconstructions in real-time?
Yesterday midnight was raining heavily. Sitting in meditation, hearing the sound of rainfall in anatta, raindrops tapping the window r like heartbeats. The vibration of the windows from the heavy wind vibrates
the body. The temperature changes, it becomes colder...whether the I disappeared and become the "room" or there is no I and no room, all these become irrelevant.
Then an inner radiance energy embrace the entire body mind as if lighting the whole dark room...still with eyes close feeling the entire changing sensations from the sitting to standing position, the dynamic changing pattern of sensations seem so gradual yet so fast...then the touch of feet on the floor and the deep breath that pulses the palms... another deep breathe....the slowly eyes opens...
To others it is just simply sitting and standing; but how is one to convey the depth of these inner dimensions of anatta from these simple mundane activities -- hearing, sensing, touching, breathing, sitting and standing?
[1:20 PM, 9/26/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. yeah thats like anatta actualization.. just like boundless presencing manifestation.. completely no sense of self, nor objects, but also no concept about anatta and emptiness.
[1:26 PM, 9/26/2020] John Tan: Question is how much quality time u engaged in practice and how much time u wasted in idle talk? 🤣
krodha = kyle dixon
level 6
krodha
1 point ·
8 days ago
· edited 8 days ago
If the nature of mind is realized
There
is a spectrum of aspects that can be recognized and realized, from
vidyā [rig pa] to the nature of mind [sems nyid], the two are not
technically synonymous, and so on. Then, within that we must
differentiate ngo shes, to recognize; and rtogs pa, to realize, and then
liberation [grol ba]. Recognition of sems nyid is not the realization
of sems nyid, just as the initial vidyā in the form of a mental factor
as rig pa skad cig ma, what Norbu Rinpoche called “instant presence” is
not qualitatively the same as the definitive expression of vidyā that
knows the essence [snying po] of mind.
Therefore this topic really is not so cut and dry.
That's why people translate the first vision the way they do..
"manifest intrinsic reality" -- (from Dzogchen by His Holiness the Dalai
Lama) on the first vision. "the direct experience of dharmata" -- (from
A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro) The direct experience of dharmata
doesn't exclude emptiness.
Yes,
well, this topic is also quite interesting. The use of chos nyid in the
first vision as chos nyid mngon gsum “the direct perception of
dharmatā” is actually a different use of dharmatā than sūtrayāna. Here,
when we see chos nyid it indicates rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs
(རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས), "confirming vidyā in a direct
perception." Therefore in the case of the first vision, we are not
referring to dharmatā as emptiness, but rather dharmatā is a term being
used to indicate the appearances of rig pa that are ascertained in a
direct perception [pratyaksa].
The
total realization of emptiness does not then occur until the third
vision, which is called “the full measure of vidyā” because at that
time, upon realizing emptiness and non-arising, our knowledge [vidyā] of
phenomena is complete, and has reached its “full measure.”
level 7
Comment deleted by user
8 days ago
level 8
krodha
1 point ·
8 days ago
Who is your teacher? You should ask for clarification on this matter.
level 9
Comment deleted by user
8 days ago
level 10
krodha
2 points ·
8 days ago
For example you separate vidya from the nature of mind
Yes, as did my root teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.
The
issue is that vidyā is subject to affliction, whereas the nature of
mind, the basis, is not. If we say the basis and vidyā are one and the
same, then we are saying vidyā is always perfected and there would be no
reason for the Dzogchen path at all, which as Longchenpa states is the
process of purifying vāyu and vidyā.
It
is a subtle but important distinction. Generally vidyā would belong to
the lhun grub aspect of the basis, the nature [rang bzhin], but the
basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion.
Continue this thread
level 10
krodha
1 point ·
8 days ago
Maybe good to ask always teachers but I've myself been given permission to teach.
Then you should absolutely go seek clarification on this issue because you run the risk of confusing others.
To me, your conclusions have fallacies and terminology isn't lining up.
This
is Khenpo Namdrol’s definition, perhaps reach out to him, Sangye
Khandro or Lama Chönam for clarification. This is ABSOLUTELY the correct
“conclusion” because they just aided my own teacher in the publication
of the Dzogchen tantra, the Yige Medpa which is the definitive
explanatory tantra on the first vision.
Continue this thread
level 8
krodha
0 points ·
8 days ago
Also
the latter section on the direct perception of dharmatā is quite cut
and dry, and if you aren’t clear on this point then you will encounter
problems in your practice, so again please seek clarification from your
teacher.
level 2
krodha
4 points ·
9 days ago
The realization of emptiness takes place at the third vision.
level 3
zhonnu
0 points ·
9 days ago
The
way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes
emptiness in thogal. As far as i am aware when people talk about the
first bhumi like the OP does they talk about the understanding that
sutra practitioners have. No questions were asked about thogal.
level 4
krodha
3 points ·
9 days ago
The way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes emptiness in thogal
Emptiness
as a principle and realization, is identical in either case. They are
both referring to the same emptiness [śūnyatā]. There is no difference
in sūtra, tantra or Dzogchen on this point, only a difference in
methodology.
level 5
Comment deleted by user
8 days ago
level 6
krodha
1 point ·
8 days ago
Dzogchen aligns with the Svātantrika view.
level 7
Comment deleted by user
8 days ago
level 8
krodha
2 points ·
8 days ago
sutrayana versions of emptiness can be different from dzogchen. That was the point.
They are the same. This is why the Dzogchen view in terms of kadag trekchö is often compared to Nāgārjuna’s prasanga Madhyamaka.
For example, Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:
The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong
view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and
the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no
difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially
pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness.
[The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham,
were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata
[tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no
difference. One hundred percent [the] same.
level 9
Comment deleted by user
8 days ago
level 10
krodha
1 point ·
8 days ago
The Vaibhasika didn't subscribe to Madhyamaka, they asserted existent things.
Yes, they are a realist school.
Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje didn’t mention Vaibhasika though
