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...
I'm not a Dzogchen teacher so this is just my random ramblings for today
- Remove Preview
- Remove Preview
- Remove Preview
Sangye GyatsoSoh Wei Yu perhaps you should re-read what i said,.. pfftyou're so hooked into conceptualising and arguing terms that i cant see how u ever get to practice.. better to go burn all your books and practice 6 long sessions and 6 short sessions a day. im a yogi, not a scholar. we take fruition as path.
Sangye GyatsoSoh Wei Yu you have all these concepts,.. im sure you have it all worked out, but i dont see any practice anywhere,.. ;; 3 words of garab dorje,.. its an engine, Tawa, Gompa, Sopa.. thats what one needs to know. its very simple. one just needs to know how to sit, the instructiosn of eyes, and the introduction to the nature of mind. sit and practice.its funny how u keep generating concept after concept... especiallly after i stated we focus on the 3 aspects of buddha nature... Awareness Clarity & Wisdom. we dont focus on the madyamika doctrins thats for accountants and scholars.. instead we discover shunyata through practice. key being.. without the practice.. there is no dzgochen. it needs to be effortless... why make it complex? it really isnt...
Soh Wei YuTake it up with Dalai Lama, Longchenpa, Khenpo Ngachung, Acarya Malcolm Smith and many other Dzogchen teachers when they say the initial recognition of rigpa as unfabricated clarity is not the same as realizing emptiness. And that the full maturation of rigpa comes with realization of emptiness down the path (i.e. third vision if you are practicing thodgal, for example). This is required for liberation. Otherwise, how is your practice any different from the non-Buddhists?And take it up with Longchenpa when he says things like, "...Thereby one will realize the apprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of clarity with no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with no foundation. (ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root. By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists)..."
Geovani GeoI think there is too much negation in this. Its like trying to negate space. It can not be affirmed for a lack of characteristics, but it can not be denied either. Much more so the non dimensional Space of all dimensions. If that is negated then you must also negate all imputations and all phenomena even if they just seem to be so. Sometimes I feel Malcolm is attached to dialectical denial.Soh Wei YuLongchenpa also negates view of inherent existence at length and thoroughly in terms of self and phenomena. To point out the insight of emptiness.The Practice Of Dzogchen: Longchen Rabjam's Writings on the Great Perfection https://www.amazon.com/Practi.../dp/155939434X/ref=sr_1_1...Exactly what I am searching"IDENTIFICATION (OF THE BASIS) THROUGH (UNDERSTANDING THE) VIEW The External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness(i) The appearances are unreal reflections like the eight examples of illusion.Everyaspect of the five objects, such as form, included in the phenomena ofthe world and beings, are mere appearances with no true existence. Allthe appearances which have appeared to both the pure perceptions of theBuddhas and the impure perceptions of deluded beings are the percepts ofwisdom and the mind. While the appearances are appearing to bothperceptions, they are appearing with no inherent existence (Rang-bZhin),like a reflection in a mirror and rainbow rays in the sky. To the pureperception of wisdom the (appearances) transcend the extremes ofexisting and non-existing as there are no stains of apprehender andapprehended. As there is no creating, ceasing, and changing, all arefree from the characteristics of compounded phenomena, the appearancesof uncompounded emptiness-form, and are totally free fromconceptualizations. To the perception of the deluded mind, (theappearances) merely appear as the object of apprehension of self(bDag-'Dzin), which have fallen into the extreme (concepts) of existingor non-existing, are detached from the characteristics of uncompounded(nature), and have strengthened the habituations of adventitious andcircumstantial self-perceptions. So, here, one will understand that theobjects, the delusory appearances of the mind, are unreal. Variousexternal appearances, such as white and red, are merely the percepts ofrigid habits, like a dream created by the drunkenness of ignorant sleep.There is not the slightest existence (in them) as the object in the(true) meaning. Also, those appearances are not mind from the very pointof their arising, because their substantial characteristics, such ascolor, size, and distinctions, negate the character of the mind. At thesame time, they are not other than the mind, because, in addition totheir being merely the delusory perceptions (of the mind), no otherobject has ever been established as such. The appearances to the mindare just types of experience of rigid habits continuing frombeginningless time. It is like dreaming last night about a magic showone has seen yesterday. Therefore, one should think that whateverappears are appearances of non existence, and are without foundation,abiding place, natural existence, and recognizable (entity). They aremerely a clear appearance of the empty nature like a dream, magicaldisplay, mirage, echo, shadowy view (Mig-Yor), water-moon (reflection),miracle, and the city of smell-eaters (a spirit world). Whateverappears, self or others, enemies or friends, countries or towns, placesor houses, food or drink or wealth, and whatever one does, eating orsleeping, walking or sitting, one should train in seeing them as unreal.One should devote oneself to this training in all its aspects: thepreliminary, actual, and concluding practices. (ii) The objects, ifanalyzed, are emptiness. If the appearances are examined from gross tosubtle down to atoms, they are partless and non-existent. So form isemptiness. (Likewise,) by examining color and recognition of sound, it(will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the form and essence ofsmell, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the aspects oftaste, they (will be found to be) emptiness. Especially, by examiningthe sources (sense-objects), the emptiness of touch will be reached.Although they are different in appearance, they are the same in theirnature in being emptiness, so the emptiness of various objects are notseparate categories. Their nature, like pure space, transcends beingeither separate or the same. So the nature of objective appearances isemptiness in its essence.The Apprehender Has No Foundation and No Root(i) The consciousnesses are self-clarity without foundation.(Thereare eight consciousnesses.) The five sense-consciousnesses; arise asthe five objects such as form, the mind-consciousness cognizes thegeneral impression (of the appearing objects) and designates them as theobjects, the defiled mind-consciousness is the sense of negating,accepting, hating and disliking (etc.), the mind-consciousness arisesafter the six consciousnesses (five senses and universal groundconsciousness), ...and the consciousness of universal ground isself-clarity (Rang-gSal) and no thought and is unrelated to the objects:these are the eight or six consciousnesses. At the (very) time of(functioning of any of) those consciousnesses themselves, whateverconsciousness it is, it is clear, vivid, and self-clarity with nofoundations. Although they appear clear, there is no substantial entity.They are appearing without existence, like clear space and a breezewith no dust. Their clarity is present naturally like the sky withoutclouds. Their movements are like wind, not in distinguishablesubstances. From the (very) time of appearing, (the consciousnesses) asthe apprehenders are self-clarity and unrecognizable. Watch them whenthey are arising and when they are abiding. Relax naturally and watchthe manner of appearing of the apprehender. Thereby one will realize theapprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of claritywith no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with nofoundation. (ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root.By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists) in theexternal appearances, inner physical body, or intermediate movements, orif the entity of the self-dwelling mind itself (can be) recognized in(its) design, color, birth, cessation, and abiding, one will realizethat its nature is non-existence, baseless and free from the extremes ofeither existence or non-existence. In this training the devotion to theLama is the only important thing.Soh Wei YuSoh Wei Yu“2013: John Tan Haha Mr J, you never give up.This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who.In hearing, it's that "sound".In seeing, it's that "scenery".In thinking, it is that "eureka"!In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping".Just marvelous such as it is on the fly.So no "it" but thoroughly empty.To you this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it never really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory.I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him.Nice chat And happy journey Mr. J!Gone!December 12 at 8:24am via mobile · Unlike · 10”Robert Dominik TkankaWe can turn this question around. "Cannot be denied". What is there to be affirmed or denied in the first place? Or what is that cannot be denied nor affirmed? We could say that somebody talking about negation is attached to denial but we could also say that talking about that which cannot be affirmed nor denied seems like an attachment to some kind of entity beyond existence and nonexistence (which is an extreme).Robert Dominik TkankaMy experience is that any "that" is a subtle kind of tension and a reference point however formless, spacious, nonconceptual or "beyond" you want it to be. It is cut through with either Madhyamaka or Trekchod ("cutting through"). So release and relaxation is freedom from any "this's and that's". Utterly pure and directSoh Wei YuGeovani Geo Do also read this:Daniel's Post on Anatta/EmptinessDaniel M. Ingram wrote in http://dharmaoverground.org/.../message.../message/4179363It is interesting that in another thread the was the assertion that MCTB whatever was about the first meaning of emptiness, rather than what your quote defines as both.Just to be clear:When I mean empty, I also mean without boundary, without inside and outsideI also mean the direct immediate experience in its unprocessed or raw form. I also mean the total dissolution of the sense of a perceiver.I also mean no active agent.I also mean that nothing is stable, including space and time.I also mean that all is bare, shifting, empty sensate experience, causal, happening according to the basic laws of the universe, naturally, on its own.I also would say that there is no boundary or differentiation between the sense doors at they occur, nor between body and mind, nor between manifestation and awareness, nor between this and that, beyond those ordinarily used for communication and discriminating function, but these are not the essential nature of experience, just part of it as sensations when they occur.Nor can one find any here that is stable, nor a now that is stable, nor a knower, nor an investigator, nor any practitioner, nor any attainer.When I talk of an integrated transient, natural, causal, luminous experience field, this sounds to me exactly like your "All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity."I see no obvious difference either in theory or in actual practice.Thoughts?Thusness's comments to AEN:Hi AEN,Those were just some very casual sharing written on the spur of a moment, they were not well thought. Emptiness to me has another dimension if you wish to look into it.When there is not even a single trace of Self/self nor is there any sense of inner/outer division, experiencer and what experienced collapsed...At this moment there is just this vivid beautiful scenery, this bright brilliant world…all self arisesAt this point…Close your eyes....Voidness....Relax and rest in this all-consuming awaring void, this clear non-dual Awareness standing alone as itself and of itself…Then shift the focus to the breath…Just the sensations of the breath…Then the transparent dancing sensations…absolutely no mind, no body, no experiencer/experienced, no inner/outer division… borderless and boundlessEvery moment is great and miraculous…This must become natural to you first.Then at this moment of appreciating maha suchness of the breath, the sensations, the entire scenery, the entire world…Understand that they are Empty!Experience the magnificence then deeply understand that they are empty but this Emptiness has nothing to do with deconstruction nor reification nor do I mean they are simply impermanent. So what is this Emptiness I am referring to?..............On another occasion Thusness wrote:Intelligent Knowingness as permanent… continuous… so many projections into time… so involved in mind conceptualities… Deconstruct seer, what happens is just this spontaneously manifested sceneryDeconstruct body further, you have mind-body dropDeconstruct time, there will only be this clear vivid presence of immediacyAfter arising insight of anatta, there is only “directness” and simplicity... go beyond conventions and conceptuality and recognize this immediate radiance is exactly what is appearing in this instantaneous moment...If you are in need of a view for practice, then embrace the general principle of Dependent Origination that doesn’t entertain who-when-where construct, it will help sever dualistic and inherent propensities. Otherwise you will have to go back to the koan I asked you when I first met you in IRC… this moment ceases as it arises, is this moment arising or ceasing? If you are clear, then further penetrate this total exertion of immediacy and realize that though there is vivid appearances, there is nothing here… nothing now… you will never find it!Labels: Anatta, Daniel Ingram, Emptiness, John Tan, Theravada |Veronika TkankaChapur Rinpoche had a really lovely and funny pointer about that when he was teaching Rushen of the Mind and Trekchod according to "Heart Drops of Dharmakaya". Im paraphrasing (trying to leave his original style): "For communication you say there is something to be discovered. The teacher asks: have you discovered the nature of mind? You say: oh yes I have discovered! But in real sense if you really discover you know there is nothing to be discovered. Nature of the mind we say so we could talk. Otherwhise we couldn't talk"Soh Wei Yu[15/11/20, 2:03:00 PM] John Tan: Tasting the "realness" of what appears and what appears is nothing real r two different insights. I wrote these b4.[15/11/20, 2:04:07 PM] Soh Wei Yu: experietial taste of empty and arisen?[15/11/20, 2:04:50 PM] John Tan: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../daniel-post-on...[15/11/20, 2:05:54 PM] John Tan: Non-arisen[15/11/20, 2:06:15 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ic..[15/11/20, 2:13:32 PM] John Tan: It is not only realising mere appearances r just one's radiance clarity but empty clarity is like that...like a . Beautiful and clearly appears, but nothing "there" at all. These 2 aspects r very important.1. Very "vivid", pellucid2. Nothing realTasting either one will not trigger the "aha" realization.[15/11/20, 2:18:30 PM] John Tan: But no need to over emphasize to others.[15/11/20, 2:19:08 PM] John Tan: As it is too difficult to express the taste...lolRobert Dominik TkankaVeronika Tkanka it's similar to what Malcolm said that the definite discovery in Prasangika is not finding anything. I think similar point was made in one of the Mahamudra classics (was it something from Dakpo Tashi Namgyal? I don't remember lol, somebody please help!) that we arrive at not finding anything and then proceed to realise and integrate the meaning of this.
- Remove Preview
- Remove Preview
- Remove Preview
Soh Wei YuIf I am not wrong, your anatta insight and nondual anatta presence should be strong and stabilized enough for now. Can put it aside and focus on emptiness.This is John Tan's advise to me half a year after my anatta breakthrough:Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold EmptinessHi AEN,Just read your post this morning and an innocent joy arose spontaneously. Indeed, after bringing non-dual to the foreground, the next step is to let go of this subtle grasping of presence and penetrate deeply into the two fold Emptiness.In many of your recent posts after the sudden realization of anatta from contemplating on Bahiya Sutta, you are still very much focused on the vivid non-dual presence. Now the everything feels ‘Me’ sort of sensation becomes a daily matter and the bliss of losing oneself completely into scenery, sound, taste is wonderful. This is different from everything collapsing into a “Single Oneness” sort of experience but a disperse out into the multiplicity of whatever arises. Everything feels closer than ‘me’ due to gaplessness. This is a natural but as you mentioned in your post,...somehow, even though luminosity is no longer seen as a Self or observer, there is still a sense of solidity that luminosity/presence is constantly Here and Now. The tendency to sink back into substantialist non-dualism is still strong...Indeed and very well said. ‘Now-ness, Here-ness’ are no different from ‘Self-ness’, let go of all these. There are several discussions in your forum recently that are related to the pointing out of the difference between the bliss that comes from non-dual Luminous Presence and 'self-liberating' aspect that comes from the insight of two fold Emptiness. You can re-read them, it may help. Also, it is time for you to put aside the Presence, this taste is already implicitly present, rather focus on having direct experiential insight of the following:1. UnsupportedThis experience is radically different from One Mind that is non-dual. It is not about stillness transparency and vividness of presence but a deep sense of freedom that comes from directly experiencing manifestation as being disjoint, spontaneous, free, unbounded and unsupported. Re-read the first stanza of anatta – an excerpt1. The lack of doer-ship that links and co-ordinates experiences.Without the 'I' that links, phenomena (thoughts, sound, feelings and so on and so forth) appear bubble-like, floating and manifesting freely, spontaneously and boundlessly. With the absence of the doer-ship also comes a deep sense of freedom and transparency. Ironical as it may sound but it's true experientially. We will not have the right understanding when we hold too tightly 'inherent' view. It is amazing how 'inherent' view prevents us from seeing freedom as no-doership, interdependence and interconnectedness, luminosity and non-dual presence.2. Unfindability, Corelessness, Essencelessness and UngraspabilityFurther penetrate into these unsupported freely manifesting phenomena and look into the core of whatever arises, not only there is nothing behind as a background, there is no inner core that can be found, nothing ‘inherently there’. If we truly see this unfindability, corelessness, essencelesnesss and ungraspability empty nature of the moment to moment of experience, something ‘magical’ will happen. Observe how the karmic tendency to ‘hold’ releases itself when the empty nature of ‘whatever arises’ comes into view.3. Embrace the view of Dependent OriginationDo not get bounded by the ‘who-where-when’ construct and embrace the view of dependent origination fully; always only 缘起当生, 缘尽当了 (AEN's translation: arises upon the arising of conditions, ends upon the cessation of conditions). Practice diligently until there is the experience of unsupported continuous opening without inner core but do not rush into any experience.Happy Journey!Labels: Anatta, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, John Tan, Non Dual, Stages of Enlightenment |
- Remove Preview
Geovani GeoRobert Dominik Tkanka, you wrote: "We can turn this question around. " 'Cannot be denied'. What is there to be affirmed or denied in the first place? Or what is that cannot be denied nor affirmed?"I will make a statement and I wonder what will you say about it. "Something" which is also "the whole enchilada", which is totally undefinable is ON. If it was not, absolute absence would be the absurd case. This can not be expressed verbally.... so,let it sink deeply, read in between the lines.Geovani GeoNonetheless, just yesterday, I have downloaded the trilogy of "resting" ( coincidence?). It is from a legally authorized site. It is in EPUB or MOBI format, so I will have to find a way to convert them to Kindle (.azw).Soh Wei YuThe third one is more crucial for you now, although the first two are also useful. According to Yin Ling: first book more on preliminaries, second book more on shamatha, third book more on emptiness insight.Geovani GeoThen I will go straight to the third one, as soon as I finish "COMMENTARY ON THE PRECIOUS TREASURY OF DHARMADHAATU". The only problem with this translation is that an excessive concern with translation exactitude compromises the fluidity of the reading. Sometimes its best when the translator groks the "spirit" of the text and lets fluidity flow more freely. It should not sound as some PHD thesis, but more like everyday street lingo.
Soh Wei Yu
Kyle Dixon juggles well between the effortlessness aspect and the effort put into practice in his 2012 sharing:
Advice from Kyle Dixon
I found this advise by Kyle to someone in 2012 which I think is well written. Posting this up with Kyle's permission.
Also see these articles by him, it's well written: A Sun That Never Sets
Dzogchen vs Advaita, Conventional and Ultimate Truth
That experience was fairly spontaneous, if I was to try to pin point what brought it on exactly I'm not sure if I could. But for about a year on and off prior to that I'd been practicing samatha or shine meditation which pretty much consists of just sitting quietly, eyes open looking at an object or space and not doing anything at all. If a thought arose I'd just let it pass and self liberate immediately without following it. From doing that my clarity and presence increased a lot. I had two smaller non-self experiences before the big one during the time I was meditating regularly everyday. I also was doing a lot of self inquiry. The day that happened though I was doing some inquiry into thought related to the present moment which was actually very forced so I'm not sure how it brought that anatta experience about. I just focused strongly on the present moment and took the attitude that there was only right here, and right now, that only what was being immediately experienced existed and it was all that ever had and ever would (which is true but felt opposite of how I usually had functioned). So I focused on that every thought that arose was the only thought there is, none before, none after. And there could only be one thought in that moment. Since there was only that one it wasn't like there was a thought waiting to arise and/or one that had left, there was no coming or going, just was was here now. And for some reason the present thought just became noise that didn't mean anything, like gibberish and it was all of a sudden apparent beyond a shadow of a doubt that there had never ever ever been anyone here at all. Thought stopped and seeing was happening but no one seeing, hearing happening but no one hearing etc.. There was only experiencing and my absence felt like I had died, or it was just seen that I had never existed which was crushing and upsetting in a way but at the same time it was beautiful.
So it was weird because I had been forcing an inquiry but the experience came on spontaneously. I'd actually deviated from dzogchen a little time before that because until this point I hadn't had any substantial experiences to validate the teaching at all. Right around that time I had been reading a lot of this guy nisargadatta who isn't even a Buddhist teacher but speaks really well about the non reality of the self... But after that experience I got more into dzogchen then I had been before and that's because it wasn't just a theory or idea anymore I saw that it was real. And I saw that it wasn't just that experience but that's how reality manifests at all times.
As far as trying to create that experience that's the trouble, which it seems you already see... That any effort to "get there" is effort by the self and therefore spoils it from being seen. This is why dzogchen speaks of "doing nothing" or "effortlessness", so that meditation you're doing where you rest in awareness is good... and adding the insight of "in the seeing just the seen" etc.. Is good too. Adding the timelessness aspect to that is also key, (which is also effortless because it's always only now, but that isn't always apparent). The feeling that there's an individual that spans time is a big part of it. What helps is understanding that it's only thought that says "I".. The "me" is just a thought, the thought isn't commenting on a "me" which is actually present apart from the thought. It's just a thought. So unless a thought is arising to claim authorship, it's already just seeing, just hearing. And the seeing, hearing etc.. Isn't inside or outside, it's just present. Just 'right here'.. immediate. Experience is just that. Seeing doesn't see objects, the objects are the seeing. Hearing doesn't hear sounds, the sound is the hearing... no separation.
But in trying to understand it like that, it's still the same old problem of the self trying to get it. Any effort made is blocking it from being made apparent when set up as 'you' trying to 'get there' in time. And this aspect of the teaching is where (for example) Jax was right (although he took it to an extreme and I ultimately didn't agree with his view).
Understand that 'you' are just a thought. The self is merely thoughts commenting on each other but thought A is never there at the same time as B so there is no consecutive chain of thoughts.
Soh Wei Yu
So luckily being that the 'self' is only a thought(idea, concept), when thoughts aren't being reified as belonging to a self they are just merely thoughts.. Just noise.. No one is thinking them, they just appear and vanish in the same moment. And for this reason merely resting in "awareness" or your "wakefulness" is actually allowing these faculties to arise in their suchness. If you rest in that unfabricated and uncontrived natural wakefulness and allow everything that arises to self liberate, the goal is to see that there is only this flow of arisings. The second part of your meditation where that element of pre-conceived forcing of the no-self view is taking place can actually go either way. It is conceptual and can be a potential trap but it all depends on how it's related to; if as the meditation is going on and the "no-self view" is being forced the seemingness of the forcing comes across as "you" doing the forcing, then it becomes a trap.. because only "you" could force the view of "no-you"... it's a trick of the self and actually keeps the illusion of self solidified and alive through that forcing. On the other hand, if while the forcing is going on, a recognition that in the forcing the forcing itself is simply spontaneously appearing itself and is spontaneously self-liberated then that is maintaining the view. The relaxed aspect of dzogchen is very key and is meant to reveal that the sum of these "aggregates" don't create a self as an entity, but that the self IS simply these aggregates. I saw a talk the other day where someone put it like this; in a water molecule there is 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen. The atoms don't bond to form this 'thing' called a water molecule.. the water molecule IS these constituent atoms. I don't really do the analogy justice but here is a link to the mans talk http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you
Another thing that I noticed in your message above is where you're saying that the 5 senses produce their respective objects without a self to be found. This statement is actually stacking too much on top of the natural state as it is... if you can notice in immediate experience; the 5 senses as faculties are not present... the '5 senses' designation is merely a convention, which is useful for communication but lacks existence apart from it's conventionality... likewise objects are designations implemented merely for conventional purposes(not to be denied, but seen for what they are as merely conventions). You're already stepping toward trying to see the absence of the self in experience, but it would be helpful to see the senses and objects as empty as well. So what this means is that in your immediate experience there is no evidence of the self and there is no evidence of the senses and their respective objects. In immediate experience it is "just this" no self, no senses, no objects, just the natural state which is beyond designation. If you try to hard to "see it", this is again the self trying to "see it", it needs to be understood that it is already always the case. The senses don't apprehend objects... the objects ARE the senses, the senses ARE the objects, and they are not two..
. but even this is saying too much.... it's just BOOM right there, happening now. In the seeing just the seen, doesn't imply that there are "things" which are seen... it just implies that it all contracts into a zero dimensional suchness... there's no objective happening... it's full union.
Now as for the "awareness"... the awareness aspect can be solidified as a substantiated 'thing-ness' as well... which was my beef with Jax's insight again to use an example. The problem with the awareness is that due to certain kinesthetic sensations approximate to what we take as our body, we feel that awareness is seated 'here' experiencing surrounding phenomena. So awareness is considered to be stationed or localized 'here' instead of 'there'. But this feeling of 'hereness' is just this kinesthetic sensation coupled with the illusion of time. In truth the feeling of looking out from the vantage point of 'here' is just a non-local "presence", there is no here or there... here and there are merely thoughts. When the feeling of presence is felt, it doesn't claim to be here or there or anywhere... if this can be intuitively understood then it can be seen that what appears, appears to itself and no distance from itself.
Coming back to the stabilization of "thought-flow" and clarity in samatha or shine meditation... this stabilization reduces the projection of designations by thought so experience can be rested in nakedly without too much distraction and for this reason it is very helpful. From there, resting in this "presence" you see that the "presence" IS the "appearances" and vice versa. Also, mere mindfulness will help stabilize this, even if it's contrived or forced.... just remain present at all times... ChNN says to do it like you're driving a car... just remain aware and focused at what's happening around you, just be here. Even if it feels like there's a "you" attempting to "be here" just let it be. In time this will also dawn true insight and the point is to have that innate and true insight apart from all of this intellectual crap i'm talking about... in just remaining present the meditation will start to work for itself and true insight will dawn on it's own accord... so try not to be distracted, and practice that non-distraction like you're doing it to save your life... like if you become distracted you'll be killed, make it of utmost importance... maintaining that flow. Now when ChNN and dzogchen talk about remaining undistracted they don't mean merely remaining present, they're talking about not separating from the non-dual natural state once that becomes apparent. But luckily since the self and the senses and objects are mere imputed conventions, in the act of remaining present, the natural state is already implied... and the contrived mindful presence will just strengthen the connection with the natural state... it's also almost like a process of reconfiguring, removing habits and tendencies to reify dualities which make a subject-object experience seem real. In time with being present, it will just happen... the feeling of being a subjective entity will just go. The "all-ground" or feeling of substantiated awareness happening here will melt into the natural state. Don't be too contrived in your mindfulness, just be present, be relaxed, allow appearances to self-arise and self-liberate and remove the notion of time and space, know that this is indeed it right here, right now, but "feel" that... don't convince yourself intellectually, be in the flow, be the flow.
Elsewhere, Kyle Dixon wrote:
"...The anatta definitely severed many emotional afflictions, for the most part I don't have negative emotions anymore. And either the anatta or the strict shamatha training has resulted in stable shamatha where thoughts have little effect and are diminished by the force of clarity. I'm also able to control them, stopping them for any amount of desired time etc. but I understand that isn't what is important. Can I fully open to whatever arises I would say yes. I understand that every instance of experience is fully appearing to itself as the radiance of clarity, yet timelessly disjointed and unsubstantiated..""
Labels: Anatta, asunthatneversets, Dzogchen, Emptiness, Kyle Dixon, Self Liberation, View and Path |
Awareness, Clarity and wisdom are NEVER seperate. all compassion springs from wisdom, so with that, is Mind.. all have equal emphasis as its only a concept to talk around that which is.. fruitless to get stuck, once you see the qualities, then just practice.. and keep recognising the qualities in all situations and all circomstances, nothing more to it, people just make it complicated as we see it, we name it, we conceptualise it..
Soh Wei Yu
The three aspects are inseparable, however beginners start with recognising the aspect of clarity. Realising emptiness comes later as explained by Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith and Kyle Dixon
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 on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book
or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:
Yes, the actual state of trekchö is the nonconceptual equipoise of a yogic direct perception of emptiness. Emptiness cannot be known by unawakened people, but clarity can be known. The nominal trekchö we practice until we realize emptiness works with the clarity aspect [gsal cha]. The nominal “little” trekchö is also called “the yoga of the view.”
“The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.”
“Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like "this is empty." We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.”
More Kyle postings:
Comment deleted by user
7 days ago
2 points ·
7 days ago
"We had some confusion over the words recognition and realization but I'm not talking about a full realization of emptiness in the first vision. I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
You still are not understanding what chos nyid means in chos nyid mgon sum it has nothing to do with emptiness. But I’ve explained this and you aren’t interested in listening, and that is okay for you, but your lack of clarity on this topic is concerning for others you may teach.
"I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
Initial recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very ripe, occurs at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions are the spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of exhausting phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, indicating the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig].
Your Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of trekchö.
Soh Wei Yu
"We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind.
This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."
Soh Wei Yu
"I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though.
I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree."
- Kyle Dixon
Soh Wei Yu those stuck in terms are blind to the 3 aspects.. ;; If we fixate on it, we name it, we conseptualise it ;; the ones who do not name are victorious.. i'll stick to the ways of the old victorious ones..
also kyle is wrong. go get lung for the guhyasamaja tantra. and there you will see the true meaning of the empties. ;;
the 4 visions are dependent on functional shunyta. all it is, is the lack of attachment. clarity of unimpeded wisdom and awareness.
dont try to complicate it, its totaly pointless and fruitless. just relax and practice, let go of all attachments.
if u have doings.. then you are still doing preliminary work to dzogchen. simple as that. just let go, forget all the pissing contests of terms and wild claims of this and that.. all the doings are basicly aproach.. cheyrim.. they just think its dzogchen..
Soh Wei Yu
Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith was asked to teach Dzogchen by his teacher Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, who finished all four visions and attained full enlightenment / rainbow body. And Malcolm told me over dinner in 2019 that Kyle Dixon was the first person (student) of his that fully understood his teachings.
Therefore their understanding of Dzogchen is in no doubt authoritative. Furthermore what I have pasted above is based on standard Dzogchen teaching and if you reject them, you are also rejecting the words of other authoritative Dzogchen masters like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung, etc.
Soh Wei Yu
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.
Soh Wei Yu
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?”
Soh Wei Yu u wont find me talking bad about any master, but even just read what MS said there about it, why not just follow what he said... ;; personly, i wont get into pointless disputes about terms,.. just practice.. the 3 words teaching is very simple, nothing to be confused about, its all in the practice, its not in any book.. also, what i said came from padmasambhava ;; if you fixate on it, you name it, if u name it, you conceptualise it,. that is the key to dharma.. pointless to focus on 'emptiness' simply just let go of attachment, there is nothing more to it. rest in the purity of Awareness, Clarity & Wisdom.. this cuts through the 8 worldly conserns and the 5 poisons, what more is there to it? just rest in buddha nature,.. nothing to be done.
Soh Wei Yu
"pointless to focus on 'emptiness' simply just let go of attachment, there is nothing more to it"
Then you are going against what all the Dzogchen masters said above.
Emptiness is not just "let go of attachment".
Without realizing emptiness one is also not understanding the full picture of Buddha nature either.
Soh Wei Yu
As for what is the definitive meaning of Buddha-Nature, the Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote:
The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.
There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:
In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.
The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:
Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.
Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".
Soh Wei Yu
And as my mentor John Tan/Thusness wrote way back even in 2004:
“Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” - John Tan, 2004
“Understand immense intelligence not as if someone is there to act and direct, rather as total exertion of the universe to make this moment possible; then all appearances are miraculous and marvelous.” - John Tan, 2012
“The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.
When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005
"What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm
In January 2005, John Tan wrote:
“[19:21] <^john^> learn how to experience emptiness and no-selfness.
[19:22] <^john^> this is the only way to liberate.
[19:22] <^john^> not to dwell too deeply into the minor aspect of pure awareness.
[19:23] <^john^> of late i have been seeing songs and poems relating to the luminosity aspect of Pure Awareness.
[19:23] <^john^> uncreated, original, mirror bright, not lost in nirvana and samsara..etc
[19:23] <^john^> what use is there?
[19:24] <ZeN`n1th> oic...
[19:24] <^john^> we have from the very beginning so and yet lost for countless aeons of lives.
[19:25] <^john^> buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness.
[19:25] <^john^> this has already been expressed in vedas.
[19:25] <^john^> but it becomes Self.
[19:25] <^john^> the ultimate controller
[19:26] <^john^> the deathless
[19:26] <^john^> the supreme..etc
[19:26] <^john^> this is the problem.
[19:26] <^john^> this is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness.
[19:27] <^john^> for full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all.”
And in March 2006, John Tan said:
<^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.
<^john^> always "I" as the source.
<^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.
<^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.
<^john^> this is truly the All.
<^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now you say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?
<^john^> yes but for other reasons.
<ZeN`n1th> what kind of reasons
<ZeN`n1th> wat you mean
<^john^> first you must know that there is really a very subtle difference between pure subjectivity and emptiness nature.
<^john^> for one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?
<ZeN`n1th> so wat difference
<^john^> he already knows and experiences and completely understand the arising cause and conditions of why the "true self" was created...
<^john^> will he still be confused?
<^john^> he knows exactly what is happening, the reality of the 'self'.
<^john^> i would say it is due to his compassion to let the other sects have a chance to understand the dharma that he said so.
<^john^> this is what i think.
<^john^> but there is no necessity to preach something extra.
<^john^> in light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary.
<^john^> the so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging.
<^john^> there is hearing, no hearer...etc
<^john^> is already beyond "True Self".
<^john^> yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self".
<^john^> if there is no hearing...then something is wrong.
<^john^> but there is hearing but no hearer.
<^john^> put your time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness.
Soh Wei Yu
Your practice may be simple, but the Buddha said the dharma he realized is "deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise".
Robert Dominik Tkanka
Good post. Since so many people are interested in Dzogchen with so many misconceptions out there (even people posing as teachers and teaching exactly the skewed wrong views you advise not to fall into) its good you tackle this stuff I think. Especially that you are making a good point. And since you endorse Acarya Malcolm Smith who is a really qualified and well versed teacher of Dzogchen then its all good (Samantabhadra ).
Robert Dominik Tkanka
Id add that not these three are part of the basis in Dzogchen so they are like you say about anatta more a seal to recognise than something to fabricate. One can gauge their practice, their path, by checking whether they have all 3 corresponding experiences in equipose. These are emptiness experience (also called non-thought, nonconceptual etc), experience of clarity and experience of sensation. Holding onto and being fixated on any one of these is a mistake and tradtionally is said to lead to rebirth in formless, form, and higher desire realms respectively. Though we need experiences for experiental insight, without these we would be just intellectually dancing on books. Integrating all three aspects completely leads to the attainment of 3 kays as a result/fruit: Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya respectively
The above presentation is a traditional one. We call these Three Kayas of the Basis, of the Path and of the Result. They are not the same thing (Kayas of the Basis and the Result) but there is continuity between them so they are not separate either: the fruit means integrating with the knowledge of the basis fully and at all times based on all these 3 experiences
Soh Wei Yu
It should also be clarified that when people talk about emptiness experience as a gap between thoughts, that is not the same as insight of emptiness. I think Malcolm and Kyle mentioned many times
Very often those without proper knowledge confuse a state of nonthought with emptiness
Robert Dominik Tkanka
Soh Wei Yu yeah. Ive also often met meditators who confuse the two. Fortunately many of them have clarified this misconception by now.
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also warned people not to mistake the two. There is additional risk in the context of Dzogchen teachings that he advised against. That being clinging to nonthought at the expense of movement - rejecting the moving mind, trying to block thoughts and being too attached to shine/shamatha at the expense of lhag thong (which in Vajrayana is about being integrated with the movement). Such error is an obstacle to realizing omniscience according to CHNNR and also makes it impossible to realise the self-liberation of thoughts.
Apart from basic meditation training in observing thoughts Mahamudra meditations aimed at discovering the self-liberation of thoughts are helpful and I think there are some good articles on the ATR blog regarding that.
Also for me and some people that I helped Thusness Anatta stanzas were very helpful in this regard. The part about no thinker just thinking to be precise.
Soh Wei Yu
John Hoag Yes, no intention to be a Dzogchen teacher.
In fact I seldom discuss on it, other than to send people to teachers and links like those of Acarya Malcolm's explanation of Dzogchen basis (my compilation): https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../clarification...