A friend shared this recently, from HHDL. I think AtR would consider these "two levels" to map more-or-less onto I AM and anatta. I'm not entirely sure, however, since even the first level is communicated (both here and elsewhere) as perhaps easier to realize than AtR's I AM.
---
The true nature of the mind, a clear experience of our knowing, is obscured in our normal experience. When meditating on the mind, you must try to remain focused on the present moment. You must prevent recollections of past experiences from interfering with your reflections. The mind should not be directed back into the past, nor influenced by hopes or fears about the future. Once you prevent such thoughts from interfering with your focus, what is left is the interval between the recollections of past experiences and your anticipations and projections of the future. This interval is a vacuum. You must work at maintaining your focus on just this vacuum.
Initially, your experience of this interval space is only fleeting. However, as you continue to practice, you become able to prolong it. In doing so, you clear away the thoughts that obstruct the expression of the real nature of the mind. Gradually, pure knowing can shine through. With practice, that interval can get larger and larger, until it becomes possible for you to know what consciousness is. It is important to understand that the experience of this mental interval — consciousness emptied of all thought processes — is not some kind of blank mind. It is not what one experiences when in deep, dreamless sleep or when one has fainted.
At the beginning of your meditation you should say to yourself, “I will not allow my mind to be distracted by thoughts of the future, anticipations, hopes, or fears, nor will I let my mind stray toward memories of the past. I will remain focused on this present moment.” Once you have cultivated such a will, you take that space between past and future as the object of meditation and simply maintain your awareness of it, free of any conceptual thought processes.
THE TWO LEVELS OF MIND
Mind has two levels by nature. The first level is the clear experience of knowing just described. The second and ultimate nature of the mind is experienced with the realization of the absence of this mind’s inherent existence. In order to develop single-pointed concentration on the ultimate nature of the mind, you initially take the first level of the mind — the clear experience of knowing — as the focus of meditation. Once that focus is achieved, you then contemplate the mind’s lack of inherent existence. What then appears to the mind is actually the emptiness or lack of any intrinsic existence of the mind.
Soh
badge icon
Aditya Prasad
The last paragraph is similar to what John Tan said here. Of course, exactly what those realisations are need to be elaborated. For example, I AM is not just experience but confers some doubtless realisation. As for emptiness there are also a few kinds of insights. But I think HHDL should be pointing to the same things. I think I quoted something from the recent HHDL book that is very much about anatta and emptiness. I would think that HHDL should be having similar understandings.
Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3EcU8VAfUU (Part 2)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
YOUTUBE.COM
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
· Reply
· Remove Preview
· 1w · Edited
Soh
badge icon
What John Tan said:
· Reply
· 1w
Soh
badge icon
John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
This is like what I tell u and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).
First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They r the same.
However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If u go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, u will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots r.
Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.
The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the later is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.
As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both r equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they r the same (imo).
2
· Reply
· 1w · Edited
badge icon
Aditya Prasad
The last paragraph is similar to what John Tan said here. Of course, exactly what those realisations are need to be elaborated. For example, I AM is not just experience but confers some doubtless realisation. As for emptiness there are also a few kinds of insights. But I think HHDL should be pointing to the same things. I think I quoted something from the recent HHDL book that is very much about anatta and emptiness. I would think that HHDL should be having similar understandings.
Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3EcU8VAfUU (Part 2)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
YOUTUBE.COM
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
· Reply
· Remove Preview
· 1w · Edited
Soh
badge icon
What John Tan said:
· Reply
· 1w
Soh
badge icon
John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
This is like what I tell u and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).
First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They r the same.
However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If u go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, u will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots r.
Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.
The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the later is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.
As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both r equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they r the same (imo).
2
· Reply
· 1w · Edited