Wrote to someone interested in Dzogchen but stuck at the I AM to one mind phase:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/comments/166w2yu/comment/jz3sns0/?context=3

xabir

·

2 days ago

What was that experience like?

1

Reply

Share

User avatar

level 2

Icy-Public6761

OP

·

2 days ago

It lasted an instant. The overall experience so to speak I cannot say anything about it without it becoming something it's not. No distinctions nothing not even emptiness but emptiness

These further words are the concepts I had surrounding it which lead me to loosing it as it arose

The timeless instantaneous moment of all wisdom the very first ignition of awareness itself, the source of all buddhas all confused all manifested and not manifested but also not timeless as no time exists, no wisdom, no source as its nothing at all, no buddhas no sentient non of that just it which is not it but also everything simultaneously.

Only my individual wisdom and it existed nothing existed also simultaneously, only this was known but not known because to know it you lost it as i did when I felt it

The unconditional love of the universe as if this was pure love of everything but also contained all the pain all the suffering all but not all simultaneously

Everything I had concepts surrounding it I also had concepts undoing itself simultaneously

This is the source prior to all my lifetimes that was certain but as for how I don't know. It was like instantly waking up to all my infinite lifetimes not remembering those lifetimes but waking up to the origin of which my awareness came from. It was known as this is the thing buddhas know that we don't know and is why they're even buddha, to know this was to know all but know nothing to know this was to only know this and nothing else at all but this. Direct straight cut to all instantly.

But those distinctions is why I lost it all as it came.

I wasn't able to sustain it, if I was I am certain to thr core of my being that this was absolute fundamental basis of all and I would only be it not exhaust into it like going from a to be but being it

The heart sutra sounds exactly like what I had because notice how all words undoes all its collapsing all.

Buddhas words, no emptiness no form emptiness Is fork form is emptiness no dharma no confusion nothing no nothing no nothing of nothing. Anything you say about it simultaneously undoes itself simultaneously

I understand that nothingness is being experienced individually, let's say a buddha state of enlightenment so to speak, the buddha does not awaken and all awaken simultaneously it awakens individually, even buddha Is a distinction

No buddha no not buddha nothing because for anything to be anything is just an expression regardless whether or not it knows the secret or not its still an expression,

All confused all enlightened is just an expression amd also nothing to express

I cannot tell you the experience because that's impossible. Do nlt take these words as absolute but without saying anything at all you wouldn't know what I knew. I don't know it now as its gone but I cannot shake that I knew it

A nyam is like intense clarity being experienced or nothingness being experienced or dullness being experienced and held onto

This was lost iv not held to the experience which makes it not a nyam. Cannot be replicated neither

But it doesn't change the fact I knew that it was it without a shadow of a doubt it was it but yet I can't say why

The above are just words which mean nothing at all because each word is so separated from the experience

It wasn't even an experience because their would need to be something to experience it wasn't even that it was knowing truth. But to know would mean something was know but it also wasn't

I can go on forever saying and undoing it so I'll just stop here

1

Reply

Share

level 3

xabir

·

2 days ago

·

edited 2 hr. ago

It is just the aspect of clarity aspect. It needs to be matured with guidance and training. When rigpa is matured one realises emptiness. You will need to find and train under a qualified Dzogchen teacher if Dzogchen resonates with you, there is no way around it for Dzogchen.

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...."

Dalai Lama - "Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā

According to Sūtra, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind or on the transforming buddha nature alone will not eradicate afflictions. However, it does lead us to have more confidence that afflictions are not an inherent part of the mind and therefore that becoming a buddha is possible. This, in turn, leads us to question: What defiles the mind and what can eliminate these defilements completely? Seeking the method to purify the transforming buddha nature, we will cultivate the wisdom realizing the emptiness of inherent existence and eradicate ignorance.

According to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind could lead the coarse winds to dissolve and the subtlest clear light mind to become manifest. When this happens, practitioners who have previously cultivated a correct understanding of emptiness then incorporate that understanding in their meditation and use the innate clear light mind to realize emptiness and abolish afflictions.

It is important to understand the Sublime Continuum correctly from a Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā point of view. Some people take it literally, leading them to incorrectly believe that primordial wisdom is permanent, inherently existent, independent of any other factors, and does not rely on causes and conditions. They then make statements such as, “If you unravel this secret, you will be liberated.”

Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima (1865–1926) and his disciple Tsultrim Zangpo (1884–c.1957), who were great Dzogchen scholars and practitioners, said that the mere presence of this primordial wisdom within us alone cannot liberate us. Why not? At the time of death, all other minds have dissolved, and only the primordial mind remains. Even though it has manifested in all the infinite number of deaths we have experienced in saṃsāra, that has not helped us attain buddhahood. These two sages say that in order to attain buddhahood, it is necessary to utilize the primordial wisdom to realize emptiness; only that will liberate us. This is consistent with Tsongkhapa’s view.

Some commentaries on Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā say: This wisdom that abides in the afflictions is the true wisdom, and on this basis every sentient being is already a buddha. Although we have been buddhas from beginningless time, we have to be awakened again. The wisdom that we have now is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and the three bodies of a buddha exist innately in each sentient being. Sentient beings have a basis of essential purity that is not merely emptiness but is endowed with three aspects. Its entity is the dharmakāya — the mode of abiding of pristine wisdom; its nature is the enjoyment body — the appearance aspect of that mind; and compassion is the emanation bodies — its radiance or expression. In short, they say that all three buddha bodies are present, fully formed in our ordinary state, but since they are obscured we are not aware of their presence.

Such statements taken literally are fraught with problems. While some people are partial and unfair in their criticism and refute misconceptions in only some traditions, Changkya Rolpai Dorje (1717–86) was unbiased and pointed out incorrect interpretations in all four Tibetan traditions, including his own Geluk tradition. In his Song of the Experience of the View, he says, “I say this not out of disrespect to these masters, but perhaps they have had less exposure to rigorous philosophical investigation of the great treatises and were unable to use certain terminology appropriately.” That is, the difficulty in their assertions lies in a broad use of terminology that is not grounded in the authority of the great treatises. Of course, Changkya’s comments do not apply to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā masters such as Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima and his teacher Awa Pangchu, who have done serious philosophical study and examination of the great treatises and who ground their understanding of Dzogchen in them. Their interpretations and writings are excellent.

All four Tibetan traditions teach practices that search for the mind — where it came from, where it goes, what its shape and color are, and so forth. Speaking of this shared practice, Changkya said that after searching in this manner, we find that the mind is not tangible, lacks color and shape, and does not come from one place or go to another. Discovering this, meditators experience a sensation of voidness. However, this voidness is not the emptiness of inherent existence that is the ultimate reality of the mind; it is the mere absence of the mind being a tangible object. Although someone may think this voidness is ultimate reality and meditate in that state for a long time, this is not meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind. There are two ways to meditate on the mind. The first is as above, examining whether the mind has color, shape, location, tangibility, and so forth. This leads to the sense that the conventional nature of the mind lacks these qualities. The second is meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind, in which we examine the mind’s ultimate mode of existence and discover its emptiness of inherent existence. People who confuse these two ways of meditating on the mind and think that the mind’s absence of tangibility, color, and so forth is the mind’s ultimate nature may criticize masters such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti for their precise expositions on debate, logic, and reasoning, saying these only increase preconceptions. Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme (1762–1823), another master who was impartial in his critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, said he found this amazing.

Some people believe there is no need for reasoning or investigation on the path, that simply by having faith and receiving the blessing of a guru primordial wisdom will arise. In this light, I have been very happy to see the establishment of more shedras — academic institutes — that teach the classical philosophical texts from India and Tibet.

Some Westerners similarly do not value Dharma study and investigation, perhaps because Buddhadharma is relatively new in the West. Without a comprehensive understanding of the Buddhadharma, people tend to seek the easiest and shortest path to awakening, a path that does not require giving up their attachments. Such an attitude exists among Tibetans as well. Tsongkhapa said that many people think that the Buddha’s qualities are wonderful, but when a spiritual mentor explains through reasoning and scriptural citations how to attain them, they become discouraged and say, “Who can actually achieve such realizations?”

2

Reply

Share

User avatar

level 4

Icy-Public6761

OP

·

3 hr. ago

It most certainly verifies that buddhahood is attainable. If I hadn't had felt this even though it was for a instant I can honestly say my faith would be based on some level of blind faith following a teaching which resonates with me but simultaneously lacking any verification that what's being said is even possible

As for being buddha, we'll of course we are an ignorant version of buddha.

What is a buddha? Ask the question of what a buddha is and then ask what a sentient is

And tell me the difference between the two before I even go deeper into this aspect of it.

As for why primordial wisdom isn't enough, I have my own thoughts surrounding this which are

When we arose from the ultimate of the ultimate transcendental origin of all, the absolute which you I Samantabhadra arose from we still arose as primordial awareness, however how this awareness was perceived from this arising was what made the biggest difference between the two

Samantabhadra arose knowing that primordial awareness was presently arising as an expression of the ultimate beyond the beyond, Samantabhadra arose knowing he was an arising of this then further sering the lights knowing the lights were arising from his presence which is the same thing but also different because we're primordial awareness is just the presence of the absolute and we on the other hand seen the lights as being the presence of pur primordial awareness

Two very different things.

For example when we die we go into primordial awareness which is only recognising itself which is no different to how we first arose from this absolute of absolute

Primordial awareness knows itself but does it know its origin? No

Let's say for example we have hypothetical scenario of absolute being left and the lights being the direction of right. Primordial awareness is at the centre of both of these directions but which way is it aware of the arising is it aware that its arising and then lights are arising from it or is it aware that its arising from this absolute which in effect the lights are arising from the primordial awareness? It's only aware of the arising of its presence not that its the presence of the arising of nothingness which being this presence things are arising from that

But that's just my own take on it that's what it felt like when I felt that experience whether it's true I don't know iv not studied enough to clarify this its just how it felt

1

Reply

Share

level 5

xabir

·

12 min. ago

What you realized and experienced is just the aspect of clarity and then wrongly reified into an absolute. This is a deeply rooted paradigm based on the false view of inherent existence and subject-object duality. It is no different from the non-Buddhist Atman-Brahman view. The great (non Buddhist) mystics offer various names to it, the great I AM, the I-I, which is not the egoic self but the infinite, oceanic and all-pervading Presence, the Great Self with the capital S, denoting its status as the ontological Ultimate Reality, the Absolute, the "unborn and undying", the Universal, overarching, all-subsuming, transpersonal, One Without a Second, your own Godhead, your own formless, spaceless, timeless, infinite Ground of Being, your own Atman that is Brahman, your Keter, Christ consciousness, radiant Shekhinah, [insert your favourite among all the countless epithets], so on and so forth.

Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like? Being freed from individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even in the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is God.

Your view and what you have gone through is currently similar to that, and because of this dualistic paradigm it continues to elude you in your everyday experience, or remain as glimpses, as the relationship between Pure Perfect Presence and everyday ordinary transient world and experience remains unclear and dualistic. As long as there is the slightest delusion and view that there is an Ultimate or a Beyond or an Absolute or a Behind that is more ultimate and special than the sound [sgra], lights ['od] and rays [zer] as your own self-display, as pristine consciousness, beyond the dualism of subject and object, 'absolute' and 'relative', then there is no liberation but constant struggle and effort. As Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote in 2020, "There is no absolute, so how can Zen have a standpoint regarding it?" The reification of Pure Perfect Presence into an 'Absolute' that exists behind or beyond 'the relative' is itself the root cause of duality. And as long as there remains the slightest delusion that there is an ultimate background/beyond/behind behind relative phenomena, this will serve as the greatest hindrance to the effortless spontaneous actualization of pure perfect presence in every natural manifestation.

Firstly, what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience.

When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Pure Perfect Presence. From the chirping sound of the bird, to the vibration of the moving train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, to the greenery of the leaves and trees and the blueness of the blue sky, all these experiences are crystal clear, vivid, alive, pellucid, radiant, luminous, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. So the so called “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an after thought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action. So to answer your question of what is Alaya: it is precisely this reification of Clarity into a background substratum. As long as there is the slightest reification of a background substratum, a view that a background substratum is real and truly exists, a belief that a primordial awareness truly exists as something other than what appears, that alone is Alaya.

These mystics who realised the "Great I AM" reify an inherently existing Source and Substratum that lies prior to all phenomena, exists in and of itself before all phenomena and gives rise to all phenomena, do not understand the true Buddhist view, let alone Dzogchen. They are unable to overcome the view of a truly existing ground of Being and Source as a background of phenomena, a view rooted in a paradigm of dualism and inherent existence. As such, Pure Perfect Presence is seen as the ultimate Beyond, hiding behind everything, and this prevents the realization and full actualization of that in each and every single diverse manifestation. There is in truth, no Beyond at all, the Beyond or "background" is just an illusory image the mind made of Presence out of its cognitive poverty to comprehend its nature.

Continued below

1

Reply

Share

level 6

xabir

·

11 min. ago

For example, I have a dharma friend by the name of Joel Agee, he wrote before that "Here are two sentences from one of the oldest Dzogchen texts, The All-Creating Monarch (Kunjed Gyalpo) quoted in Longchenpa's Precious Treasury of the Way of Abiding (Richard Barron's translation):

“Seek the location of the heart essence through phenomena that derive from it

and come to appreciate it through the skillful means of not conceptualizing in any way whatsoever.

Since the heart essence occurs naturally, dharmakaya is not elsewhere.”

Coming across these lines had a vividly awakening effect on me.

Simple but profound and ongoing: a deconstruction of an unconscious habit of locating awareness anywhere else than in the moment-to-moment transient phenomena. Whoosh! No observer, no witness. No location!"

I wrote a post in 2018, "Dzogchen: Beyond Cause and Effect

(r) "Because (followers of anuyoga) do not understand that the phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the Source, just-that-ness, they see space and wisdom (respectively as) cause and effect. Because they affirm the cause and deny the effect, (they have) obstacles until (they develop) confidence in (dzogchen) that transcends both affirmation and negation."

"Followers of anuyoga do not understand that all phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the state of Pure Perfect Presence, the Source, just-that-ness. They see a duality of cause and effect, in which the two aspects -- the emptiness of space and the luminosity of wisdom -- are, respectively, earlier cause and later effect. They affirm the production of the effect from the cause, but deny the dependence of the cause upon the effect. They do not understand that all phenomena are the essence of self-originated wisdom, which primordially transcends arising, ceasing, accepting, and rejecting based upon cause and effect. Thus they have the obstacle of not understanding the authentic state, the real condition, until they correctly acquire confidence in the fundamental principle of ati dzogchen that transcends both affirmation and negation."

- Ornament of the State of Samantabhadra: Commentary on the All-Creating King, Pure Perfect Presence, Great Perfection of All Phenomena

My own comments: If you have some notion that there is a space behind phenomena out of which phenomena is later created, that is dualism. All phenomena are one's own state, one's own essence, nature and energy.

The notion of true origination is erroneous. For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight. Sun has no sun-essence apart from shining and shining has no essence of its own apart from sun. Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects. If you think the father could exist without the son, then you are affirming the producer of the effect independently of the effect. In truth, the son, the love for the son 'actualizes' the father. Both are merely designated in dependence without any independent reality. In truth, sunlight/manifestation is non-originated, non-arising. There is no that which produces and that which is produced when both are merely/dependently designated." - A post I wrote in 2018

Joel Agee also added in 2013 to his original post, "Until fairly recently, the metaphor of the mirror and its reflections seemed a fitting image of my contemplative experience: that there is an unchanging, ever-present, imperturbable awareness that is the absolute ground and the very substance of phenomena, and that while this motionless, contentless awareness-presence is inseparable from the ceaseless coming and going of appearances, it also transcends everything that shows up, remaining untouched, unstained, absolute and indestructible.

A couple of years ago I discovered Soh’s blog, Awakening to Reality, and in it Soh’s account of his exploration of the Bahiya Sutta and the Zen Priest Alex Weith’s report on his realization of Anatta through practical application of the Bahiya Sutta. I saw then that Anatta was not fully realized in my experience. The illusory nature of a separate unchanging personal self had been seen through, but an unconscious identification with “Awareness” or “rigpa” had taken its place.

Since then, an unstoppable deconstruction of that impersonal background identity has been happening in my contemplation and in my daily life. There is still a noticeable attachment to the memory of that subtle Home Base. It shows up as a tendency to "lean back" from the unpredictable brilliance and dynamism of the moment into a static, subtly blissful background presence. But there is no longer a belief in an Awareness that is anything other than, or greater than, or deeper than, THIS sound, THIS smile or stirring of emotion, THIS glance of light. There is no Mirror that is not the reflections.

So the shift in my experience and practice is not a preference for one teaching over another. It’s an ongoing realization that direct contact with the grain and texture of moment-by-moment experience is what Dogen meant by “being awakened by the ten thousand things.” - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/09/joel-agee-appearances-are-self_1.html

Continued below

1

Reply

Share

level 7

xabir

·

7 min. ago

What the Dalai Lama was eluding to is also this, the importance to realize the empty nature of that primordial wisdom, otherwise its discovery at the time of death does not liberate: and this is something my mentor has said more than a decade ago as well:

"When we die, the thoughts and emotions that are karmically linked to the body are temporarily suspended. The contrast in experience that resulted from the dissolution of the ‘bond of a body’ gives rise to a more vivid experience of Presence; although the experience of Presence is there, the insight into its non-dual essence and emptiness nature isn’t there. This is similar to the experience of what the mystics call “The Great I AM”. Thoughts and emotions will continue to arise and subside with the bond of ‘I’ and ‘Mine’ after death.

Pristine consciousness is always non-dual and all pervading; obscured but not lost. In essence all manifestation, transient (emotions, thoughts or feelings) is really the manifold of Presence. They have the same non-dual essence and empty nature. All problems lie not at the manifestation level but at the fundamental level. Deep in us we see things inherently and dualistically. How the experience of Presence can be distorted with the ‘bond’ of dualistic and inherent seeing maybe loosely categorized as:

There is a mirror reflecting dust. (“I AM”)

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

Dust is required for the mirror to see itself.

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

Dust has always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole)

Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight.

In 3, whatever comes and goes is the Rigpa itself. There is no Rigpa other than that. All along there is no dust really, only when a particular speck of dust claims that it is the purest and truest state then immediately all other arising which from beginning are self- mirroring become dust."

But if one's insight remain the level of 1 and 2, one has not gone beyond the non-Buddhist views and one's pristine consciousness is distorted and misinterpreted by false views.

Likewise, Acarya Malcolm Smith has said,

"One, whoever told you rig pa is not part of the five aggregates? Rig pa is knowledge of your own state. In its impure form one's own state manifests as the five aggregates; in its pure form, it manifests as the five buddha families.

Nagārjuna resolves this issue through using the eight examples. There is no substantial transmission, but there is serial continuity, like lighting a fire from another fire, impressing a seal on a document and so on. See his verses on dependent origination:

All migrating beings are causes and results.

but here there are no sentient beings at all;

just empty phenomena entirely produced

from phenomena that are only empty,

phenomena without a self and what belongs to a self,

[like] utterances, lamps, mirrors, seals,

lenses, seeds, sourness and echoes.

Although the aggregates are serially connected,

the wise are understand that nothing transfers.

Also, the one who imputes annihilation

upon extremely subtle existents,

is not wise,

and will not see the meaning of ‘arising from conditions’."

....

“The relative is not "reliant" on the ultimate, since they are just different cognitions of the same entity, one false, the other veridical.

There is no separate entity called "buddhanature" that can be established to exist in a sentient being composed of the five aggregates. If one should assert this is so, this position will be no different than the atman of the nonbuddhists.”

Not to mistaken Dzogchen as a system that asserts based on paradigm of dualism and inherent existence, some ultimate absolute. Dzogchen view is not the same as Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Christian Mysticism, Islamic Sufism, Judaist Kabbalah, etc etc. As Krodha wrote before, "This idea of a single reality described differently in various cultural contexts is called “perennialism,” and is more of a new-age spiritual idea that originated with the theosophists.

This idea is rejected in Buddhist teachings which go to great lengths to demonstrate how and why it is untenable.

The Dzogchen tantras for example, list 60 views, which can be expanded to 360, that were found in the Indo-Tibetan region and are very clear that none of them are equivalent to Dzogchen. Advaita Vedanta is listed and actually cites Adi Sankara by name. These are not just arbitrary differences based on superficial differences, and are meant to be taken seriously."

In a separate post I wrote last year, I said, "In Dzogchen, it is said that our basis, our nature, is said to have the qualities of purity (i.e. emptiness), spontaneity (lhun grub, associated with luminous clarity) and compassion (thugs rje).

IMO: all three are equally important. To skew towards emptiness while missing the luminous clarity radiance is to fall into a kind of intellectual idea of emptiness, or a state of nihilism. To skew towards luminous clarity while missing out on emptiness is to fall into the eternalist views of non-Buddhist yogis, reifying an essence and substratum out of luminosity. To skew towards the emptiness and clarity but missing out the compassion that is the spontaneous responsiveness of our nature is to miss out on the full actualization of our nature in activities. Also, to conceive of the radiance apart from activities and manifestation is also to reify the radiance as having self-nature, thus not truly penetrating its empty nature. Also you are missing out the heart in all these if your entire being is not filled with spontaneous compassion. Yet, to skew towards compassion while missing out the emptiness and clarity is to fall into a kind of foolish compassion, compassion but without wisdom. So on and so forth..."

Continue reading below

1

Reply

Share

level 8

xabir

·

6 min. ago

1

Reply

Share

User avatar

level 4

Icy-Public6761

OP

·

3 hr. ago

Also my thoughts to back up my claim which I will accept otherwise if told any differently

Knowing that sentients has buddha fully manifested which is true

However does it explain how wisdom awareness is being actualized?

Is it actualising its presence and all being an appearance of that or is it actualising its presence is just presence of its own arising which are two extremely different things

Correct me if I'm wrong and again this iv found no ground to base this claim but I trust you'd had read something about this if it has any ground at all....

Buddha knows the origin of its wisdom so to speak but also knows that all is arising from wisdom simultaneously

Have you noticed in your own practice that wisdom is only actualising the wisdom aspect of what's arising from the wisdom and not the origin of the wisdom? The beyond wisdom is still completely ignored its ignorant of that completely even in trekcho practice its completely ignorant of this its only faced one way so to speak

1

Reply

Share

level 5

xabir

·

just now

See my other post that deconstructs an absolute source.

Also, someone once wrote to me,

“Ok... I am seeing your point as "awareness" outside of conditioned experience is an imputation. When could one ever have such an experience outside of experience? The "knowing" of being would also be an experience, as opposed to the "not knowing". And if there was "not knowing", then how you could prove there was "awareness" in such a "not knowing"? Very interesting.

Well, its not really new... 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.” - Mr. J, 2012

“What is presence now? Everything... Taste saliva, smell, think, what is that? Snap of a finger, sing. All ordinary activity, zero effort therefore nothing attained. Yet is full accomplishment. In esoteric terms, eat God, taste God, see God, hear God...lol. That is the first thing I told Mr. J few years back when he first messaged me 😂 If a mirror is there, this is not possible. If clarity isn't empty, this isn't possible. Not even slightest effort is needed. Do you feel it? Grabbing of my legs as if I am grabbing presence! Do you have this experience already? When there is no mirror, then entire existence is just lights-sounds-sensations as single presence. Presence is grabbing presence. The movement to grab legs is Presence.. the sensation of grabbing legs is Presence.. For me even typing or blinking my eyes. For fear that it is misunderstood, don't talk about it. Right understanding is no presence, for every single sense of knowingness is different. Otherwise Mr. J will say nonsense... lol. When there is a mirror, this is not possible. Think I wrote to longchen (Sim Pern Chong) about 10 years ago.” - John Tan

“It is such a blessing after 15 years of "I Am" to come to this point . Beware that the habitual tendencies will try its very best to take back what it has lost. Get use to doing nothing. Eat God, taste God, see God and touch God.

Congrats.” – John Tan to Sim Pern Chong after his initial breakthrough from I AM to no-self in 2006

1

Reply

Share

User avatar

level 4

Icy-Public6761

OP

·

2 hr. ago

Primordial awareness needs to exhaust that's how we realise absolute. This awareness itself the base of all which is both base for dharmakāya and alaya itself needs to exhaust

When you think what's different between dharmakāya and alaya? Presence of the arising of this ground

Krodha has attempted to say I'm in alaya but it's impossible to say whether I'm not unless you're experiencing my awareness, impossible to truly know unless you are within my mandala of experience experiencing it as it comes

Mind recognising mind is alaya cognition

Awareness recognising mind is arising from the ground of awareness which phenomena are simultaneously arising along mind is recognition of dharmakāya

Correct me if I'm wrong?

Dharmakāya has cognitive recognition, its realising the container of habits of the arising of phenomena, its realising that phenomena and mind are arising simultaneously but in some sort of delayed way.

To realise mind and phenomena are arising together theirs some degree of delayed arising from awareness to mind and phenomena arising simultaneously which is why you're able to watch it happening. Although extremely short it's still kind of delayed which is why its a layer from one to another

Primordial awareness is watching mind arise as mind

I can't fully place into words that experience But I'm seeing it happening as its presently so to speak happening. Almost as if mind arising as mind ( phenomena arising simultaneously with mind ) is the objective of that experience

I then recognise that this knowing of that is itself an illusion then I'm instantly just arising as awareness no mind just clear lucid presence

But this presence is also failing to see its arising as presence which is also a distinction from the absolute the presence itself is not absolute

1

Reply

Share

level 5

xabir

·

just now

Dharmakaya is this:

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

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

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

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

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

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

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

- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html

1

Reply

Share

User avatar

level 4

Icy-Public6761

OP

·

7 min. ago

What's your cobstruct of absolute though? Let's debate from personal encounters of insight not reference because I feel that is important for both of us to progress

1

Reply

Share

level 5

xabir

·

6 min. ago

I don't want to repeat myself but if you're interested, I documented my personal insights and journey and experience in my e-journal: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

Many hundred pages. Actually I hesitate to share this here because this was written even before I got into Dzogchen. Let's keep this discussion Dzogchen teachings focused. This is not a forum to discuss your personal journey.

1

Reply

Share