A conversation that took place in Facebook, "Dharma Connection". Thusness commented that Kyle's posts are very well thought, structured and clear.

Kyle Dixon: "When you rest your attention in naturalness without thinking anything whatsoever and maintain constant mindfulness in that state, you may experience a vacant and blank state of mind which is neutral and indifferent. If no vipashyana of decisive knowing is present, this is exactly what the masters call 'ignorance'. It is also called 'undecided' from the point of being unable to express any means of identification, such as 'It is like this!' or 'This is it!' Being unable to say what you are remaining in or thinking of, this state is labelled 'ordinary indifference'. But actually, it is just an ordinary and nonspecific abiding in the state of the all-ground [Skt. ālaya, Tib. kun gzhi].

Although nonconceptual wakefulness has to be developed through this method of resting meditation, to lack the wisdom that sees your own nature is not the main part of meditation practice. This is what the 'Aspiration of Samantabhadra' says:

'The vacant state of not thinking anything

Is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.' ...."

- Mipham Rinpoche

10 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 4

Kyle Dixon: There's a difference between non-thought (or the suspension of thought) and recognizing primordial wisdom. Discerning vidyā and sems is a vital aspect of the teaching, however it's important not to fall into a trap where sems is rejecting sems (thought is rejecting thought), all that accomplishes is sustaining distraction (meaning breathing life into the delusion that a point of reference [subject] stands apart from thoughts [objects] which sequence consecutively in a given span of time and can be either accepted and/or rejected).

9 hours ago · Unlike · 3

Din Robinson: so how does the idea of present moment awareness fit in to this, since it's your nature as awareness itself that is present and still that notices all ideas and perceptions for what they are

9 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: If awareness is held to be the 'stillness' which abides prior to (or behind) the 'movement' of thoughts, ideas, perceptions etc., then this is still upholding duality. Stillness and movement must be recognized to be non-dual, meaning awareness is only ever precisely the forms, thoughts, etc.

There's no thoughts/forms that are the same nor different than awareness, and no awareness that is the same nor different from thoughts/forms.

9 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 4

Din Robinson: so how does the process (idea) of withdrawing identification with thoughts fit into this?

btw, the withdrawal of identification with thoughts is the same as withdrawal of identification with form, for me

9 hours ago · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle wrote:

"If awareness is held to be the 'stillness' which abides prior to (or behind) the 'movement' of thoughts, ideas, perceptions etc., then this is still upholding duality."

if awareness is held to be anything other than "what is" then there may be some IDEA or PERCEPTION of what awareness is, and then there is identification with ideas about what awareness is and this movement in tandem with thought, is identification with thought, it is making the content of thought (the meaning of thought) reality, instead of what already simply "is"

9 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: It's a preliminary and tentative practice that aids in curbing habitual tendency. So practices like śamatha [shiné] help the individual to withdraw or 'step out' of the habit of identifying, grasping, clinging at thought. 99.999% of people are very caught up in thought and habits of grasping, so the withdrawal helps the individual to see that there is a wakefulness which is present whether the thought is there or not. It helps to begin the scrutinization of experience, evaluating the processes, cultivating discernment and discrimination.

However the point isn't to cling to the wakefulness either, so after that wakefulness has been identified, it's important to evaluate and scrutinize that wakefulness too. The wakefulness (or awareness) is 'stillness' which appears to abide apart from the forms and thought which move before it. The thoughts and forms are the 'movement'.

Once both stillness and movement have been successfully identified, it's then time to discover how stillness and movement are non-dual, by seeing how stillness and movement are imputations. If that is done correctly then the background substratum (stillness) is recognized to have been always empty, and the luminous forms of experience (movement) are also found to be empty. There is no duality, no dichotomy (apart from conventionality). Everything becomes the total exertion of the immediacy appearing to itself (not that there is an 'itself' the empty display is appearing to, 'appearing to itself' is just a way to designate the general state of affairs from the standpoint of that wisdom).

9 hours ago · Unlike · 4

Piotr Ludwiński: "IDEA or PERCEPTION of what awareness is" and that is preciesly the case in way you reify stillness to be inherent awareness. "since it's your nature as awareness itself that is present and still that notices all ideas and perceptions for what they are". Reifying non-conceptual thought aka "crystal clear stillness" as "Awareness" is still ignorance from buddhist point of view.

9 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: Unfortunately these golden chains... I mean that imputation and reification of non-dual experience of stillness in thought realm into nonumenon/subject/static mirror makes one unable to truly realize "three marks of existence"; impermanence, selflessness, unsatisfactoriness. Why it makes one unable to realize them? Since as soon as imputation of "awareness" is projected upon crystal clear stillness it serves as condition for golden chains; clinging to it as self, permanent, satisfactory. This is just exchanging one bondage for another. That non-dual experience of thoughtlessness is mistakenly clung to as "stillness" due to dualistic framework. Conceiving reality in polarities (stillness vs movement) we reifiy it as unmoving point of reference for all experience... Due to inherent and dualistic framework it is reified into Divine Presence/God, unmoving witness/mirror etc... Whiile that experience of stillness is like flow of a river... Unsatisfactory... Selfless... Impermanent. // "Ananda, you should know that this state of clarity is not real. It is like rapidly flowing water that appears to be still on the surface. Because of its rapid speed, you cannot perceive the flow, but that does not mean it is not flowing. If this were not the source of thinking, then how could one be subject to false habits?"

8 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: To sum it up: what is entirely conditioned and what is ignorance, imputation, an arrow in heart, cancer, bondage... is mistaken as unconditioned freedom. Sad situation; we are happy because we managed to exchange our rusty chains for golden ones! Identification/disidentification with thoughts is still in realm of dissociation and dualism, conceiving an agent, a being, self that is to identify or disidentify. Thoughts themselves must be embraced by vipassana and seen for what they are; substanceless self-aware activities without any observer, subject, agent, doer behind them. "Crystal clear stillness" too must be recognized as mere interdependently originated self-aware activity. In this way there is no more holding to stillness vs movement; "stillness" and "movement" are forgotten into naked non-dual experience without referencing to mirror /subject/source

8 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: We were lost in delusion of "movement" for so long that as soon as non-dual experience of non-conceptual thought takes place we instantly grasp this delusion of "stillness" as purest state and "true nature". From one deluded polarity to another deluded polarity. That is the "freedom" of abiding as imputed mirror. From bondage of person/emotions/thought/little self to bondage of "the presence"/dissociation/non-thought/Self. I wouldn't call this false liberation "our true nature".

8 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 2

Din Robinson: yes, I see what you're saying Piotr, what our true nature is, is all of it, without any need to focus in on any particular aspect of it, nor needing not to, also!

8 hours ago · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle wrote:

"Once both stillness and movement have been successfully identified, it's then time to discover how stillness and movement are non-dual, by seeing how stillness and movement are imputations. If that is done correctly then the background substratum (stillness) is recognized to have been always empty, and the luminous forms of experience (movement) are also found to be empty..."

I tend to describe things from my own experience using as few concepts as possible, so would you agree that i am saying the same thing when i say that seeing all my "imputations" or thoughts for what they are, that is bringing all previously unconscious beliefs/perceptions into the clear light of present moment conscious awareness, is their "release" and all that's left is "what is" without any definition or interpretations clouding the "view"

or do you mean something different when you use the word "empty", because "empty" to me, just means "with no true reality to begin with"

8 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: It's important to realize as these Dzogchen masters point out: that the thinking process is itself ignorance. Realizing this breaks the back of reliance upon thought. As Norbu and Dudjum Rinpoche both point out, between thoughts, the Dharmakaya as rigpa is shining nakedly. Tulku Urgyen teaches the exact same as Choki Nyima in the OP. Samsara is thinking or conceptualizing. If there is thinking the split between subject and object are always split. In absence of conceptualizing all that remains is non-dual awareness. What is not understood is that all experience is pure awareness. Experience is empty. The essential nature of emptiness is pure awareness. Emptiness is pure awareness and awareness is luminous emptiness. Thinking is also empty, recognizing the empty nature of thinking, is pure awareness. There is only pure awareness appearing, hence all experience being known.

7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon:, no one is recommended a "blank state". Chokyi Nyima is not advocating that at all. He is just pointing out the cause of samsara. Actually samsara is itself the thinking process. Outside of the thinking process there is no suffering or samsara. Samsara is a day dream, that's all.

7 hours ago · Edited · Like

Din Robinson: Jackson wrote:

" In absence of conceptualizing all that remains is non-dual awareness."

all that remains before and after is "what is"

let's not put any other label on it other than that

otherwise the mind (thought process) may come in and want to attach some other meaning on it

7 hours ago · Like

Din Robinson: trying to nail this down feels like a dog chasing it's own tail

7 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: From the relative side as created by thought, we wake from the dream of thinking. From the absolute side there is nothing the matter, but then dualism has already vanished. The absolute is self-manifesting as the relative, and this is done via the thought process. The Buddha plays in the relative via thought. Without thought the samsara vanishes.

7 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: One's condition becomes afflicted with latent traces, karmic propensities and habitual tendencies which result from grasping and clinging. Imputation is indeed the third ignorance which forms the ālaya, however it takes the full force of authentic recognition to dispel that ignorance. Thought is only a support and driving force.

7 hours ago · Unlike · 3

Kyle Dixon: The dharmakāya being the 'space between thoughts' is only a preliminary pointer which serves the sole purpose of engendering confidence in the practitioner that wisdom will not be found elsewhere. That being said, it's true the dharmakāya can be found there, but the illusion of space between thoughts is still the ālaya. That is why ignorance cannot be dispelled simply by suspending thought.

Thinking and conceptualization are driving forces behind delusion, however it is much more subtle than samsara simply being 'thinking and conceptualization'.

Thinking does cause the subject-object dichotomy to arise, however in the absence of conceptualization that latent proclivity to grasp is still present. So even though 'non-dual awareness' is indeed one's basic condition, and therefore it's presence is implied in the absence of conceptualization, unless recognition of one's nature has occurred the 'underlying non-dual' condition is not fully apparent. Only prajñā can reverse or undo that affliction, without that wisdom, the mind's nature remains buried under subtle habits of perception and clinging even in the absence of thinking and conceptualization.

7 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 4

Din Robinson: Kyle, I just saw this comment on another thread and think it fits perfectly here with your idea of imputation being the third ignorance:

"It's so interesting how meditators spend so much time thinking about thought. I've heard that Gautam Buddha up in heaven wishes he had never brought it up. Everyone wants to transcend and somehow having no thoughts is a popular goal. If you ever really touch the Emptiness, then you'll see what the Buddha really meant, and it has nothing to do with what you thought. It's more akin to fairies and comedians than to the holy seriousness a lot of people have. Rodney Dangerfield is spying on you!"

~John Levin

7 hours ago · Like · 1

Din Robinson: great comment Kyle

you wrote:

"Thinking does cause the subject-object dichotomy to arise, however in the absence of conceptualization that latent proclivity to grasp is still present."

yes, the need to grasp or grasping itself needs to leave the shadows of the unconscious and be seen in the clear light of conscious awareness, this is how prajna arises

is it not?

7 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I wrote this before in a different thread on here in response to this same conversation:

That assumes that thoughts sequence consecutively in a linear fashion and that they arise and fall. The gap isn't Dharmakāya. Dharmakāya is recognizing the non-arising of thoughts and gaps.

Achieving a stable śamatha is important to sever (or decrease) the compulsory habit of conceptualization, but simply increasing that space between thoughts is nothing more than a stable śamatha. Yes you marry the śamatha with vipaśyanā but whether it is wisdom or ignorance makes all the difference. The true vipaśyanā is resting in vidyā (as you know because I've seen you mention it).

Thoughts sequencing consecutively with gaps in between is still a subtle structuring of ignorance. The illusion of a space abiding between apparent occurrences is partly responsible for the idea of an entity (or capacity) which exists in time and is subject to experiences in the first place. When mentation is recognized to be the immediate and disjoint clarity itself, then it's suddenly realized there was never a space between thoughts (beyond conventionality) and the foundation for the chain of conceptualization and cyclic existence is undone. Only then does the primordially non-arisen display of wisdom become fully apparent.

"Were that which is apprehended through the intoxicated conceptual-constructions of sentient beings factually true, then they would be on a par with the liberated Arhats who conceive not of this 'Existence.' Since, however, they are tormented by suffering and slain by time, it is obvious that they are [caught up] in something false."

- Mañjuśrīmitra

7 hours ago · Unlike · 3

Kyle Dixon: Din, I agree with that John Levin quote, although I would say it does have to do with what we think, it's just that what we think isn't the entire crux of the issue. It gets subtler, but addressing thinking and conceptualization is important.

7 hours ago · Like · 1

Din Robinson: the way i see it Kyle, is that if we never touched another thought, we could laugh our way into eternity

7 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: Right but what is it that would never touch another thought? This whole issue comes about because thought is objectifying thought, so if we say never touching another thought would resolve the problem, this still assumes there is something that can accept or reject thought. The idea is to see that 'thought objectifying thought' is the culprit, along with the various implications, tendencies, proclivities, habits, propensities etc., which arise as a direct result of that error.

7 hours ago · Like · 4

Jackson Peterson: Kyle thought is the manifestation of karma,and karma is the result of thought, its a loop. Thinking is the software language of samsara. Without thinking, the software can't function. Rigpa or the Original Mind is the operating system.

7 hours ago · Edited · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle, I really like your last post, it shows that my personal experience is still just a "story" being told, and that "what is" is totally free whether i realize it or not

7 hours ago · Edited · Like

Din Robinson: no matter how hard i try, i still feel better not doing anything at all, it just feels right!

7 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: The underlying substratum that seems to abide apart from thought is actually an illusion created by the supposition that thoughts are relating to each other in time. So thought B is supposing that it follows thought A etc., and then thought B will even suppose it can refer to thought A, but by the time that's occurring it's thought C. None of them ever touch, no two thoughts are ever present together in the immediacy, so a thought isn't referencing anything, it's an illusion. Even the idea that there is more than one thought! That very idea creates the notion that there is a space between them etc. Only ever the immediacy, the thought phenomena is the full exertion of clarity in the moment and is never located anywhere.

6 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Din Robinson: "This whole issue comes about because thought is objectifying thought, so if we say never touching another thought would resolve the problem, this still assumes there is something that can accept or reject thought. The idea is to see that 'thought objectifying thought' is the culprit, along with the various implications, tendencies, proclivities, habits, propensities etc., which arise as a direct result of that error"

is this your own experience Kyle?

6 hours ago · Like

Din Robinson: btw, i really like this:

"The idea is to see that 'thought objectifying thought' is the culprit, along with the various implications, tendencies, proclivities, habits, propensities etc., which arise as a direct result of that error"

6 hours ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: Din, it's everyone's experience, it just isn't apparent. The line of reasoning behind that is what I just wrote above though, with the thought A, B, C, and how they are creating the illusion of time and an enduring substratum etc. Time itself is one of the thoughts, but more so than an imputing thought (i.e. concept), 'time' is an illusion supported by the phenomena we'd refer to as 'memory' as well. So our notion of time also depends on memory, or thought-images, (I'd say mental images but there's truly no psyche or mind that these are belonging to, they themselves create the illusion of psyche and mind).

6 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 2

Jackson Peterson: What is being ignored in your model Kyle as described is brain function and how thoughts connect through various neural pathways in the brain and how these pathways become patterns of thought and behavior. Every thought has a corollary in brain activity. Our actions originate in subconscious processes that "reveal" the intention in consciousness along with the soft-ware program that makes the surface consciousness believe it is "originating" or "thinking" these thoughts and intentions itself. No one is choosing thoughts or actions to do or not do. Its all just happening without a "controller", based on conditioning and sensory perception being driven by the overall urge to survive and reproduce. There is actually a very complex "mind" in place that operates through many hierarchies of programming. Its called the human brain.

6 hours ago · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Din, These types of subtle evaluative gymnastics are actually what brought about one of my more intense peak experiences which revealed anatta. That is why (in addition to being a proponent of non-analytical meditations) I'm a big proponent of analytical investigations, because they too can bring about cessation. And the thing is that dzogchen is as well, if you read some of the main texts that are implemented such as the Yeshe Lama etc., attempting to pinpoint the place of arising, abiding and ceasing of a thought is one of the practices taught to induce recognition of the mind's nature.

I myself actually followed what Greg Goode, had suggested with evaluating thought. His line of reasoning went like so: if there can only ever be one thought at any given moment, then there cannot be two. If there cannot be two thoughts in any given moment, then how can there even be one? I grokked that deeply and in addition to understanding that there was no thinker of thoughts, no feeler of feelings etc. And by the good graces of other merit I had been accumulating through regular practices at the dzogchen center I go to, and regular śamatha along with the blessings of my guru Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and guidance of my mentor Rangjung Rigdzin, plus Greg for that investigative practice... I was fortunately able to bring that recognition about.

6 hours ago · Unlike · 5

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I don't put too much weight in the whole 'brain' and neural pathway model, it's a little too materialist for me, but if it works for you then that's wonderful!

6 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: Your brain did it Kyle... with a little help from your friends...

6 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: We can't ignore the brain model when we see how certain drugs can completely effect our thought processes, moods, actions or brain injuries or tumors.

6 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: The real practice of becoming free of thinking is simply seeing the emptiness of thoughts as they arise, that emptiness is itself the Nature of Mind.

6 hours ago · Like

Joel Agee: Kyle: "I myself actually followed what Greg Goode had suggested with evaluating thought. His line of reasoning went like so: if there can only ever be one thought at any given moment, then there cannot be two. If there cannot be two thoughts in any given moment, then how can there even be one? I grokked that deeply . . ." -- I don't get this. Can you help me understand it?

57 minutes ago · Like

Kyle Dixon: Joel, for me it had to do with examining the immediate moment very thoroughly and keeping a steady focus on the immediate now, now, now, and what constitutes the immediacy. So the direct experience of the moment is only ever precisely what is immediately apparent. The notion that anything did (or didn't) come prior is only ever a thought in the direct immediacy. Likewise the notion that anything does (or doesn't) come after is only ever a thought directly occurring. The thought which is directly occurring never points outside of itself, it may appear to suggest any number of things, but in truth the thought is precisely what is occurring now and the now is not different than the thought.

So if the thought is only what is occurring now, and now is only the thought, the immediate thought has no access to any other thoughts, because there are none, nothing is occurring except for what is presently occurring and since the present is only exactly what is occurring, it cannot get outside of itself. In order for a thought to be a thought (a singular entity) it would need a reference point to gauge it against and it would need multiple manifestations or versions of itself for it to be established in anyway. But that is impossible due to the fact that the full exertion of the direct immediacy is only the immediately apparent thought. The immediate thought may point to (or suggest) the existence (or non-existence) of other thoughts, but in truth, because no two thoughts ever meet in the immediacy, the present thought which suggests the existence of another thought, points nowhere and to nothing, not even itself.

If there can't be two thoughts in the immediacy, because of the fact that thought never sequences in a consecutive line of thoughts, the immediate exertion can tentatively be treated as the only occurrence, nothing has ever come prior, nothing ever comes after, there is no history, there is a thought that is simply primordial exertion, there is primordial exertion that is simply a thought. For there to be one, there must be more (or less) than one, but there is no reference point. For the syllables which even create the idea of 'one' meaning 'one' or 'thought' meaning 'thought' another thought must be referenced, but the 'other' thought which is referenced is nowhere because it is precisely the immediate exertion.

So the phenomena which is thought then says nothing, the sound is a series of syllables, they signify nothing, they point to nothing, no more meaningful than any other sound, if the thought speaks, the car door shutting speaks, if the thought communicates, the white noise of the fan in the background communicates. Where is 'one'? Where is 'two'? The totality of the timeless immediacy never reaches outside itself, and within it's unborn exertion nothing ever occurs.

There's a book by Mark Twain called the Mysterious Stranger, which explores the experience of Satan. And there is a quote by Satan that is very fitting to this:

"Life itself is only a vision, a dream. Nothing exists except empty space and you, and you, are but a thought."
May 12 at 2:15pm via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 7
Joel Rosenblum: I remember having the realization, while attempting to find the beginning to samsara, that the beginning was thought. And thought was like a an explosive virus. However, Buddha was right to admonish against such investigations, because it did drive me temporarily insane.
May 12 at 3:06pm · Like · 1
Joel Rosenblum: Kyle, I never had a class in logic and if I had I probably would have failed it, but the very fact that I don't have the working memory space to understand what you are saying seems to disprove your point that only one thought can exist in consciousness at a time. Psychology has proven that we can hold an average of 3-4 thoughts in consciousness simultaneously. If you could only hold one thought at a time you would not be very functional. But perhaps I misread you.
May 12 at 3:46pm via mobile · Like
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: @Joel, "Psychology has proven that we can hold an average of 3-4 thoughts in consciousness simultaneously"
That's not what Abhidharma says. I would be curious to have a short explanation about the way to hold more than one thought at the same instant? There is only one continuum.
May 12 at 4:09pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: The Dalai Lama commented recently that "Brain science has proven that the descriptions in the Abhidharma are wrong. We have to be open to what science teaches as the Buddha would recommend."
May 12 at 5:36pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: During a thought, there is always something present beyond the thought itself. The total exertion is not just the thought being presented, but rather an open or empty cognitive aspect from which the exertion is itself just a representation. Missing the depth of that cognitive aspect is to assume there are just "thoughts happening in emptiness" which is a nihilistic view. When that open emptiness is fully explored it is known to be the Ground of Being that can't be reified beyond our "current thought" which is itself empty.
May 12 at 5:42pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: What aspect of brain science is proving what aspect of abhidharma wrong? That begs the question though of what suppositions or paradigms may be influencing that notion? Brain science as a science does nothing to explain how consciousness functions, if anything brain science is restricted to the confines of the brains functioning as it's interpreted within the mechanical paradigm that dominates science this day in age. Abhidharma in and of itself has never claimed to be an exact concrete science, it's merely a methodology which has been formulated around the efficacy of the dharma and it's goal of liberating beings. I don't see how the two could even begin to conflict. And further, since the dharma is constructed to self-implode it leaves no residue other than liberation, emptiness is empty, nothing's left to hold onto. If you lay that aside and decide modern western science is going to somehow compensate for that (or improve upon it) you are most likely selling yourself short in my opinion. Science is a great supplement, but can't be a replacement.
May 12 at 5:49pm via mobile · Like · 5
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, if that's the interpretation you came away with after reading that explanation; (thoughts happening in emptiness at the expense of cognizance), then you've completely misunderstood.
May 12 at 5:58pm via mobile · Like
Greg Goode: Joel writes, "Psychology has proven that we can hold an average of 3-4 thoughts in consciousness simultaneously."

Joel, you also mention logic, and yes, what Kyle is talking about here is the process of a few logical grokkings. It is powerful for those with affinities to this approach. But it certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. Isn't it good that there are many other ways to come to peace?

Anyway, in psychology, the mental activity is divided into several supposedly simultaneous thoughts based on the supposed simultaneous presence of different objects of thought.

For example, it seems like you can see something, hear something and smell something at the same time. It seems like the objects are all out there, sending signals, and the data is streaming in over 3 or 4 different channels into the central receiver at one time.

I have some pretty detailed experiments about this in my book called The Direct Path, including what happens when you are sitting down drinking coffee while watching a fireworks display. In direct experience, what is really happening?

That exercise takes place in the book after it is already deeply understood that there are no "external" objects whatsoever directly experienced to exist apart from awareness. And there are no sense organs to serve as conduits of transmission either, since they are merely additional physical objects.

When that is the case, then it makes no sense to individuate thoughts by the external objects they supposedly have. In the direct path, a thought is never experienced to have a true object. (a thought may claim that there are objects, but separate objects are never experienced.) It's quite radical - the very idea that vision sees something external such as a color is itself merely a thought. But in direct experience, it is not that way. You never have independent access to any color apart from seeing. And yet you would need independent access in order to certify that vision is actually "seeing" the object. Otherwise, how can you be sure that vision, and the object, are matching up the way we think? We never have more than a thought that says so. We can't stand between vision and colors and prove the link.

So then the question becomes,

Is it four simultaneous thoughts?

or

One thought claiming "four simultaneous objects"?
May 12 at 6:09pm · Like · 5
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: Impression of simultaneity is not simultaneity. If you (are able to) isolate "instant", only one thought take place in it ... but instant after instant may let the impression of simultaneity.
@Jax, dont throw the water with the baby, SSDL did'nt say precisely to do so.
May 12 at 7:35pm · Edited · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon:, HHDL didn't expound further...
May 12 at 7:32pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: I think for balance, it is good to not be too focused on just the phenomena of thought as being THE hot topic regarding liberation and insight etc. The nature of the cognitive presence ever-present is really most important, don't you think?
May 12 at 7:35pm · Like
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: it happens so ...
May 12 at 7:36pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon:, you are creating an unnecessary dichotomy between the mind and the brain. Slight changes in brain chemistry or through magnetic resonance, can inhibit the ability to think, to think clearly or to be inundated with overwhelmingly strange thoughts and hallucinations. We also know through MRI that there are approx. nine typical centers in the brain that simultaneously become active and inter-communicate during the sense of "egoistic selfing". Interrupting that pattern effects the degree of sense of self present. So the brain is involved with all cognitive processes. We need to realize that the Dharmakaya expresses what we are through the dependently arisen electro-chemical changes in the brain. However there is an even higher functioning brain within the brain. I call it the quantum brain. It is this mind that interfaces between the classically functioning brain and the spiritual dimension as concretely experienced as ESP: telepathy, clairvoyance and radical moments of synchronicity on the macro level. The quantum brain most likely is embedded in the brain tissue, within cell structures within each neuron known as micro-tubules. Each brain cell has over a million of these. Research is showing that "quantum" processes are involved in how certain processes like information sharing required during mitosis occur. Further, cells throughout the body may be co-communicating via this quantum signaling completely outside of neural pathways. Japanese researchers have found that certain hair-like cilia in lung tissue may actually be acting as antennae for sending and receiving these quantum signals. These quantum antennae may even receive quantum signals from other organisms.

It is through the quantum brain the brain signals are converted into what we call conscious thoughts and come into "consciousness" through the main quantum brain system: our chakra system and Light Channels. By enhancing and activating the chakras and "inner lamps", we completely transform our consciousness into the non-local quantum state and likewise download quantum signals downward into the physical brain hence modifying its operating system. When we die the quantum system detaches from the physical brain and we enter the non-local quantum dimension that some call the bardo. You know the rest of the story. Do understand the role of the brain, its hugely involved in all conscious and subconscious processes.
May 12 at 10:36pm via mobile · Like
Joel Rosenblum: I just want to know Kyle how you can explain that only one thought can be attended to or "known to exist" at one time and yet explain working memory. I think you are looking at the attentive process in a limited way. True, you can do vipassana and notice the "mind moment waves" one at a time, but here we are producing the effect by our will. Just as in the dual nature of light, so too are all things both discrete and continuous depending on how we choose to perceive them. When you perceive each mind moment individually, disjoint from all other mind moments, you gain dispassion for identifying with the mind stream's moments. But you aren't very functional within duality unless you can also see the mind moments as fluid and grouped.
Monday at 9:42am via mobile · Edited · Like
Greg Goode: Joel, you ask how Kyle (or anyone?) can explain functional memory if it's only one thought at a time. Or how a person can function... Kyle's model comes from the direct path. These things aren't explanations or theories according to the direct path. They are a matter of direct experience, which is global awareness itself. In fact, when ex platoons and persons have been seen through and experienced for what they really are, then explanations are no longer needed, and no longer possible either. Functioning is better than ever before. I was able to learn to ride a brake less bike in the city, and rollerblade with no brakes also - after these deep insights. And this is saying way too much, because this sounds like an explanation and it's not.

In fact, one of the most powerful realizations in the direct path is that memory is absolutely unverifiable.

But this deep realization does not prevent one from going along with psychological theories in the collegial sense. Just like Sri Atmananda had no belief in events or people or laws, but he functioned in law enforcement by say and taught the direct path in the evenings.

There is no necessary problem unless a thought says so.... And even then, it's just the claim of a thought....
Monday at 11:01am via mobile · Like
Greg Goode: iPhone autocorrect. - not ex platoons, but explanations!
Monday at 11:02am via mobile · Like · 1
Joel Rosenblum: Greg, your post itself is interesting because you talk about how great your functioning is now that you are awake and yet you fail to directly address the question that you at first seemed to be attempting to address. So although you may be more functional in some ways, the way I see it, you are not fully integrated. And of course what I say may sound equally absurd to you. But since you and Kyle are both trying to awaken others, and to teach awakening, it may be useful for you to consider how what you say is perceived by those you are trying to teach. I understand that reality is infinite paradox. Adyashanti says that one can gauge one's level of awakening by the degree of comfort they have with paradox. Perhaps my role here in this convo was simply to offer the other side of things, the dualistic side, to remind you that dualism is just as real as non-dualism. Can you dig that or does it make you uncomfortable?
Monday at 11:55am via mobile · Like
Greg Goode: I can dig it, and love paradox. I would be the last to try to privilege one way or view over another. If it comes across that way, I apologize! Can you ask your question again in a different way?
Monday at 11:58am · Like
Joel Rosenblum: Well, honestly when I re-read my question it almost sounds like I am just trying to pick a fight. Perhaps it is I who needs to let go here. I don't like to read what I consider nonsense (ie we can ONLY hold one thought at a time), but then again, this isn't about me. If you believe you we can only hold one thought at a time, why should I argue? Probably I am making you and Kyle into straw men, anyway. This is all so tangential. Sorry.
Monday at 12:12pm via mobile · Like
Greg Goode: You know, there is one interesting thing about this "one-thought" idea that I find a bit remarkable. Advaita and Buddhism when they get into their psychology and stuff actually agree about one-at-a-time. In the midst of disagreeing about so much else!

But then they go deeper into their inquiries, and neither path really maintains a serious commitment to thought. It is sort of left behind by their realizations. Thought is seen through as anything that happens in an objective, truly real way. So their teachings about thought functioned at a stage of explication only.

Other teachings have other things to say about thought.

These days, more Buddhists and a few Advaitins seem to be talking to psychologists and brain scientists. People seem open to learning from each other. I like this, and if folks don't end up in agreement and there seems to be incommensurability and paradox, that is OK too. I find a sort of pluralistic joy in that diversity.....
Monday at 1:25pm · Edited · Like · 6
Kyle Dixon: Joel, I can dig it too, I enjoy the skeptic approach and I enjoy my point of view being challenged, evaluated, taken apart etc., so kudos to you. And see it's hard for me to grasp how there could be more than one thought at a time so I find the proposition intriguing.

The last thing I want is for someone to agree with me though, I value the diversity in views. And there's so many great ways to approach these topics how can we ever insist one way is the 'truth'? The teachings need to be flexible to work with the individual. Formulating a rigid structure and insisting that's the only way is a death sentence for these teachings. Not everyone is the same. If clothing or shoe companies only made one size for everyone they would fail, it's the same with these practices and teachings, the route needs to match the capacity, interest, passion of the individual otherwise the passion will die and the interest will be lost.
Monday at 1:06pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 4
Joel Rosenblum: Amen, Kyle and Greg. I bow to you.
Monday at 2:03pm · Like · 1
Ville Räisänen: Good thread! isn't this one-thought-at-time a matter of concentration? I remember that in my zen days (that might not be over) I used to count breaths and watch the other thoufhts same time? And I didn't loose the count. Then I asked about this for the teacher and there was no real understanding. So if you concentrate to have only one thought, you can find it. Where it leads? To one-pointed samadhi. Otherwise there actually can happen simultaneous thoughts that can be regocnized like "brain acts like different windows in your computer screen".
Monday at 10:10pm · Like
Ville Räisänen: Not brain. maybe say consciousness or awareness that regocnizes.
Monday at 10:11pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: When we realize the empty nature of thoughts we realize no single thought or multiple thoughts have ever arisen. The single thought is beyond thought and contains the totality of experience. The luminous nature has no edge or border, and cannot be divided up in any way anymore than we can divide the sky or space into this single space and that multiple space.
Monday at 11:00pm via mobile · Like · 1
Ville Räisänen: What is the single thought beyond thought? makes no sense to me at all http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sk7s1/
"Batman Slapping Robin" | quickmeme »
www.quickmeme.com
Create and share quickmeme's instantly with your friends.
Tuesday at 7:29am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Jackson Peterson: This "single thought" is symbolic of all appearance.
Tuesday at 9:15pm · Like · 1
Viorica Doina Neacsu: Great thread! Thank you
Tuesday at 11:15pm · Like · 1
Joel Agee: Kyle, thanks a lot for your very clear explanation regarding Greg’s “never-more-than-one-thought” experiment. I contemplated it in a sustained way during a long flight from L.A. to NY, and have done it again in shorter sessions several times since. I can see how keeping it going would result in a profound release of the habit of “thought reifying thought.”

You ended your post with the words of Mark Twain’s Satan: “Life itself is only a vision, a dream. Nothing exists except empty space and you, and you are but a thought.” Maybe I’m missing something, but to me, the exercise reveals life as a constant flashing-forth of vital unforeseen instants, disjoint in their particularity, yet miraculously coherent and ordered. If the last were not the case, Greg wouldn’t be able to sail through New York City traffic on brakeless rollerblades -- as a body, not just a thought -- and you would not be able to write such a lucid series of sentences.
17 hours ago · Like
Greg Goode: Who says that Greg or Kyle are really doing that stuff?? What is "really" going on - that's precisely part of the point... How can any description or object be taken wholly literally, even for things with high degrees of "reality effect" such as streets and rollerblades? The "thought" discourse is self-deconstructing, it's a teaching device which doesn't make the final cut....
17 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Joel Agee: I understand that Greg and Kyle aren't doing that stuff. I'm just saying that that stuff is not adequately described by "empty space and an I-thought." Again, am I missing the point? Sorry I'm so dense!
16 hours ago · Like · 1
Greg Goode: Well Joel Agee:, there are a few steps in between ! The lvicabulary of space and thought doesn't have the purpose of adequately describing the actives of everyday life. For that kind of adequate description, we have the vocabulary of ... everyday life!

That brings up the question, "OK, so how does one come to experience (what some people call) rollerblading as nothing other than awareness?

That's what the direct path is so good at doing. One proceeds openly, sincerely, via direct experience. One looks at a set of rollerblades, or a teacup, or the hard, asphalt street, and comes to experience deeply that there is no street present apart from an exapnse of color and a feeling of hardness or whatever sensations seem to represent a street. Apart from the sensations, there is no street directly experienced.

Here is a radical realization: because there is no getting between the sensation and the street to see that one points to the other, one realizes that there is no sense in which one is sensing the street. That street-object is simply not present in direct experience.

Similarly for the texture, hardness and color. They are not experienced directly apart from the modalities of touch and vision. So there is no experienced separate object that vision SEES. Vision isn't directly experienced as having an object.

Then for vision itself. Vision is never experienced independently from witnessing awareness. There is no other access to vision. So it isn't directly experienced that we witness vision. Vision IS witnessing awareness.

One does this for each sense in turn, then for supposed combinations of senses, then for movement, then for different objects, then for other "body"-type physical objects, then one's "own" body.

After this is thoroughly investigated, there is no more independent physicality. No more material with which to separate or partition bubbles of awareness.

Then one begins to look at the mind and the subtle worlds...

You see where this is going - to awareness, the sum and substance of all experience.

This becomes one's living experience. This is why it isn't so simple to conclude that One is rollerblading!
15 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3
Kyle Dixon: Joel, and the other half of that investigation would be what Greg is discussing here. You would turn to the rest of experience and evaluate it the same way you did thought. And in addressing experience you may take each sensory experience gradually, for example; object-to-sensory modality, the sensory modality-to-awareness. Or you may not it just depends. You may be able to intuit how the display is the full exertion in the immediacy.

In evaluating phenomena, see that objects are merely shape, color etc., as Greg mentioned, and that those shapes and colors do not actually create anything apart from appearance. Coupling that with the insight you gain from the thought-investigation, you'll see that there is no object which endures through time, simply an empty display which is only ever the exertion of the immediacy. We conventionally attribute origination and substance to the display as objects etc., but upon scrutiny they are unfounded. So full exertion, nothing coming nor going, in being disjoint; spatiality, distance, movement etc., are simply translating fluctuation in pattern etc., nothing underlies the sheer appearance.

Greg has said that the direct path does allow awareness to self-destruct after one has reached that point, allowing for a total collapse. But whether it collapses via it's own accord or you take a different route it must be addressed in one way or another. If an alternate route is implemented, it is important to be sure that awareness is approached the same way as thought and other phenomena. Recognize that it cannot be found or located apart from the empty display of the immediacy's exertion. It's important to allow for a freedom from extremes, so no remainder should be left over. No awareness is established within or beyond the display.

And so therein lies the metaphor in that quote. In the absence of extremes and reference points, when the entirety of the moments timeless display is unable to reach beyond itself. There is an ungraspability, no way to cling or pin anything down. In the absence of extremes there is no coming nor going, here nor there, up nor down, and then the emptiness of even those extremes just mentioned. Just like space. So there is empty space and you, and 'you', 'I', 'me' etc., is just a thought, so not even that applies beyond conventionality.
14 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 2
Greg Goode: One more thing - the direct path works best if it is done in order, from the gross to the subtle. People love to begin with thought ane feeling. But if one enters there before investigating the body, then it will be felt as though thoughts are arising in the body. This will place a stumbling block in the way of realizing the higher witness and later nondual awareness, since it will seem as though awareness is limited to this body only. That is where you get lots of the psychology-sounding nondual teachings. The insight and discourse is stuck at the "mind" level and has no way of transcending that implicit, unacknowledged, separative and dualistic structure.

So in all my years of helping people with the direct path, I've found the investigation into thought to be much easier and straightforward for people than the investigation into physicality and the body. It's only the body or something very like it that could serve as an imagined container or separator for awareness. Even the mind is usually understood in subtle physical and spatial terms most of the time. One must get past this in the inquiry. So even if one deconstructs thought into awareness but hasn't deconstructed physicality, then one doesn't really transcend solipsism. And that can be a very frightening and nihilistic place. I'm afraid that a lot of awareness-style nondual teachings end up there.....
13 hours ago · Edited · Like · 5
Jackson Peterson: I really like that Greg Goode:, what a great summary! I am going to share that! However, I fear what Kyle added may be misunderstood that only a "thought" of a "me" is what defines what "you" actually are, that appears in empty space. We can come to a "non-being" as actually an imputation stemming from "no self" insights, especially intellectually. This is a type of "nihilism" which in itself is an "extreme".
Rather I have found that, that "space" is itself "Being", the Being of Non-Being. Being and Non-Being are always one reality. When the exertion of Non-Being moves in the bias of "Being" it can easily evolve into "being a something". If right at this point the "exertion" self-releases its materializing dynamic, a relaxing back into the bliss of Non-Being occurs and the transparent unity of Being as Non-Being comes into balance energetically. This release of the materializing dynamic exertion, is the result of the awareness present as Being, self-recognizes its "empty nature" as Non-Being. To get to this level of very subtle practice one first passes through the lower harmonic of realizing "no-self" and the unity of self and no-self as both being empty. A huge and vast openning can occur at this point that reveals the higher harmonic of Being in Non- Being. But the error can occur where the aspect of "Non-Being" can be latched unto. In such a case one feels the only possible "beingness" would be simply a thought of "identity" as a "me" or an "I" appearing in the empty space of Non-Being. When seen fully we see that "awareness" is itself the Light of Being/Non-Being, not something that can be further deconstructed.
6 hours ago · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon: I clearly said a freedom from extremes, and you therefore misinterpreted what I wrote. As for the rest, you're substantiating and clinging to awareness as usual and your argument doesn't make sense.
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon:, my argument doesn't make sense to you because its not yet seen that the primal Clear Light state is a condition of Being/Non-Being in total transparency and that the vividness of experience is itself awareness self-shining as the experience. This is the dynamic exertion of Being/Non-Being as Clear Light Awareness and is what is "Knowing". That ever present "Knowing Awareness" is the "Being" side of emptiness and is irreducible as basic Luminosity Clarity. You can't deconstruct it! That very effort at deconstruction is the action of "Knowing Awareness" itself. Not knowing this you miss the whole point of the Third Turning of the Wheel and reduce Dzogchen to a hinayana attachment to a nihilistic "no self" view.
6 hours ago · Like
Kyle Dixon: It actually doesn't make sense because it's just word salad about 'being' and 'non-being'.
6 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Emptiness isn't a capacity, or a something which 'knows' or has 'a being side'. Knowing and 'having a being side' are empty, and emptiness is empty.
6 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Yes, indeed Kyle Dixon:, it is just "word salad" until "Seen" and that "Seeing" only is served after the salad and main course, as the dessert. It seems you are still nibbling on "word salad" instead of seeing that what you think is just the salad, is actually already the "dessert"!
6 hours ago · Like
Kyle Dixon: Your argument is simply reifying awareness and then sticking an 'unestablished being/non-being' label on the package in hopes that people will buy it.
6 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Also see: Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna


I have seen that when I say "awareness/luminosity is only everything", or "sensation is self-luminous", a doubt or question may arise in some. That questioner may ask then, "What is it that knows the experience of luminosity, but yet itself is never experienced"?

This question is not at all unfamiliar to me, I spent two years in the past practicing self inquiry day and night - who am I? Who is aware? Before birth what am I? Who is dragging this corpse along? To whom is this I-thought occuring? Who is the source? Etc etc (it all comes down to who is the source?). In fact self inquiry was vital for my self-realization (the realization of I AMness).

But there are two points to this:

1. One must realize that the current way of enquiry prevents the practitioner from intuitively realizing the non-arising nature of whatever arises.

The gnosis should not be understood this way such as "beyond", "changelessness", etc - understanding this way does not mean the practitioner realizes "something" superior; instead one is falling prey to his/her existing dualistic and inherent mode of enquiry rather than truly and directly pointing the way of immense intelligence.

2. The second point is that, when all enquiries and views are exhausted, how is it understood?

In other words, the way and system of enquiry already defined what you are going to experience. Therefore the mind must realize and see the futility of such mode of enquiry and any form of establishment.

This is why self inquiry is rejected by Buddha (though I advise it for beginners as it is a very potent, powerful, and direct path to Self-Realization, it is still a provisional method that has to be dropped later for further penetration into anatta, etc) as it is based on a not-so-hidden assumption that a self must exist, so the enquiry reinforces the sense of a subjective knower, it affects and prevents the complete experience of awareness.

As Buddha said in MN2: "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."


Having said this, I still highly recommend self-inquiry to realize I AMness. And don't be surprised if I talk solely about self-inquiry and I AMness to certain people. Today I still tell my mother to trace all thoughts and perceptions to her Source, I am teaching her to revert her awareness to itself or to her own source to discover her Self. I will only talk about Self to certain people and not talk anything at all about anatta or even non-dual. It may sound contradictory to anatta or emptiness teachings, but nonetheless it will lead to an important realization - that is the luminous essence of mind.

As Thusness puts it in 2009, "When I talk to someone, I have specific purposes. If I want someone to have direct experience of 'I AMness', I will want him to have vivid experience of the 'I AM' Presence, and that includes the wrong understanding of inherent existence. Just like when your teacher is teaching you algebra, he or she cannot tell you about calculus. Similarly when you learn classical physics, the teacher cannot keep telling you about relativity. There is no point to keep telling you about quantum mechanics when you are studying newtonic views, for how are you going to understand quantum mechanics? You start from the newton way of understanding gravity, then slowly followed by relativity. Similarly when you study numbers, you start with discrete numbers - there is no point teaching you decimals or the rate of change, or see things as change. You see things in discrete first. If you keep telling people about wrong stuff under differing conditions, you only confuse people. I never wanted people to understand the ultimate truth, other people will lead them to the right understanding when it is appropriate. So I might talk about Advaita [e.g. I AM/One Mind realization] until the day I die, or about stage 4 to 5 insight and nothing about 6 or emptiness. The approach I employ is strictly dependently originated, it is about seeing the conditions of an individual practitioner, but whether that person understands dependent origination is another matter."


Lastly, another sharing of an excerpt of Buddha's discourse in MN 140:

29. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’

30. “‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?

31. “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and is not agitated. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he be agitated?

32. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ Bhikkhu, bear in mind this brief exposition of the six elements.”

.............

Update: Just found a post by Kyle Dixon (see his other articles here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/search/label/asunthatneversets) in Facebook which is very relevant to this subject:

Darryl, when one investigates the subject and object, the nature of that alleged dichotomy is what is being investigated. What are the causes and conditions that allow for these designations to be apparent, and what the nature of that seeming subject which is doing the investigation indeed is.

The premise that the investigation itself is doomed from the start because it implies a subject relating to an object isn't allowing for an investigation, it's merely clinging to the initial presupposition that was to be investigated and doesn't even attempt to step outside of that box or play devil's advocate at all.

The process that the emptiness investigation is proposing, allows for the subject and object etc.. to be conventional labels and titles without insisting that they indeed relate to actual objective qualities. And those objective (or subjective) qualities that we assume are being referred to are evaluated and deconstructed to reveal that they actually don't withstand scrutiny.

The governing presuppositions must be addressed as well, for example the statement that an investigated or observed subject must be an object to that which observes it. One would have to really look at these suppositions such as a process of observation, a subject that is observed, the idea that a subject which is observed could simultaneously be a subject and also an object, what constitutes the 'subject', what constitutes the 'object', can the subjects innate knowledge of the known ever be found apart from the known and vice versa etc...

Presuppositions of arising, abiding, falling, the notion that these sequence consecutively in time, time itself, time as memory, time as projected ideation.

The presupposition that an appearance is an arising, that it indeed emerges from an undisclosed and/or unknowable location or state, the idea of that very triad: arising, abiding and ceasing.. being exclusively valid designations when abiding/cessation cannot be found upon the event of an arising, and arising/abiding cannot be found upon the event of cessation. A singular event in general would suggest other events, singular would suggest plural vice versa. Can arising be known, abiding be known, cessation be known.

What is it that performs or is endowed with qualities and characteristics, what is it that performs actions, do we find something apart from the action, do we find something apart from qualities and characteristics, do we even find qualities and characteristics within imputed qualities and characteristics.

When deconstructing ends, did it ever occur, was there indeed something deconstructed or was one's own ideation and projections all that was addressed and assessed. What is left? Does something remain when nothing stood prior, what is the soteriological benefit derived in that release, does a release or liberation happen, that would have to be predicated on bondage having existed before, is removing these notions of both bondage and liberation itself the liberation, deeming bondage and liberation themselves the bondage?

At any rate, the rabbit hole gets deep, and you seem to be resting upon the assumption that your own presuppositions are indeed inherent and infallible. There has to be a ruthlessness to an emptiness investigation, and openness, a burning want and desire.

The type of person that benefits from emptiness investigations is the one who ravenously pours themselves into the process like they're on fire and discovering emptiness will put that flame out. You strike me as a man who enjoys being on fire.

But to each their own!

(Garab Dorje)


Also see: Color, Sound, Lights and Rays
Rainbow Body and Thusness's Advice to Me
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on the Term "Rigpa"
Dzogchen vs Advaita, Conventional and Ultimate Truth

(On the definition of Turiya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya)

Here is another awesome collection of postings by asunthatneversets (Kyle Dixon) which I and Thusness think are well expressed. Also check out Kyle's other posts: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/03/sun-that-never-sets.html

A kind admin of Dharmawheel, Astus, helped me salvage some great posts in an old (closed) topic 'Turiya vs Dzogchen':

Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:56 pm

    mr.marigpa wrote:
    So the TM practitioner with stable witnessing in waking and sleeping just has really good dualistic mindfulness?

The state or position of being firmly established in "the witness" is merely being stabilized in the alaya(kun gzhi). The term "witnessing" in and of itself suggests observing phenomena from a particular standpoint. Stable witnessing is a state of detachment, In being firmly established in the "witness" phenomena appear as they normally do except there's no feeling of it being "me" or "I". The "me"(or 'that' which witnesses) is posited to be something other. So in witnessing, the body and other phenomena appear detached from the "knower". And 'that'(pure knowingness) which is disconnected is then posited to be beyond anything "knowable" because it is that which knows. 'That' which knows(pure knowingness/awareness) is considered to be a substantiated and localized substratum(even though it is considered to be formless) and for that reason it is the alaya. To describe this state, an analogy of a movie patron viewing images on a theater screen is sometimes used.

The witnessing state is equivalent to stabilized œamatha (shiné), once œamatha is stabilized one is essentially proficient in "really good dualistic mindfulness" (as you said). After stabilized shiné, next step is released shiné and once released shiné is achieved and stabilized, one is said to be officially practicing dzogchen.

"When you have achieved released shiné and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a dzogchen practitioner."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

Even those proficient in advaita vedanta downplay the witnessing state as dualistic, as shown in this dialogue between Nisargadatta Maharaj and a questioner.

Q: Well, you told me that I am the Supreme Reality, I believe you. What next is there for me to do?
M: I told you already. Discover all that you are not. Body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, time, space, being and not-being, this or that - nothing concrete or abstract you can point out is you. A mere verbal statement will not do - you may even repeat a formula endlessly without any result whatsoever. You must watch yourself continuously - particularly your mind - moment by moment, missing nothing. This witnessing is essential for the separation of the self from the not-self.

Q: The witnessing - is it not my real nature?
M: For witnessing, there must be something else to witness. We are still in duality!

Q: What about witnessing the witness? Awareness of awareness?
M: Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and discover what you are not. Nothing else matters.

So yes a TM practitioner with stable witnessing in waking and sleeping essentially has excellent dualistic mindfulness.

asunthatneversets   
    
    Posts: 510
    Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm   

Top

Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:54 pm
I found this description of turiya which is essentially a description of being firmly established in the alaya. It elaborates on how one can solidify witnessing by transcending the position of merely observing sensory phenomena, to firmly witnessing the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep (as a whole) in a detached witnessing manner. Turiya seems to be the perfected witnessing state, which is still equivalent to ignorance(avidya) as far as dzogchen is concerned.

The following is an in depth description of being firmly established in the alaya:

"Our fundamental state of true self-knowledge is sometimes described in advaita vedanta as the state of 'wakeful sleep' or 'waking sleep' (jagrat-su?upti in Sanskrit, or nanavu-tuyil in Tamil) because, since it is a state in which we experience no duality, it is a thought-free state like sleep, but since it is at the same time a state in which we experience absolute clarity of self-knowledge, it is also a state of perfect wakefulness.

Since this state of 'wakeful sleep' is beyond our three ordinary states of waking, dream and deep sleep, in advaita vedanta it is also sometimes referred to as the 'fourth state' or turiya avastha. Somewhat confusingly, however, in some texts another term is used to describe it, namely the 'fourth-transcending' or turiyatita, which has given rise to the wrong notion that beyond this 'fourth state' there is some further 'fifth state'. In truth, however, the non-dual state of true self-knowledge is the ultimate and absolute state, beyond which no other state can exist.

Since it is the absolute state that underlies yet transcends all relative states, true self-knowledge is in fact the only state that really exists. Therefore in verse 32 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham Sri Ramana Maharshi says:

For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, [the real state of] 'wakeful sleep', [which is] beyond [these three ordinary states], is named turiya [the 'fourth']. [However] since that turiya alone exists, [and] since the three [states] that appear [and disappear] are [in reality] non-existent, [the one real state that is thus named turiya is in fact] turiya-atita [that which transcends even the relative concept that it is the 'fourth']. Be clear [about this truth].

Our fundamental and natural state of 'wakeful sleep' or true non-dual self-knowledge is described as the 'fourth' only to impress upon us that it is a state that is beyond our three ordinary states of waking, dream and sleep. However, when we actually go beyond our three ordinary states by experiencing our fundamental state of true self-knowledge, we will discover that this fundamental state is the only real state, and that our three ordinary states are merely imaginary appearances, which are seemingly superimposed upon it, but which in reality do not exist at all. Therefore, though it is sometimes called the 'fourth state', the state of true self-knowledge or 'wakeful sleep' is in fact the only state that truly exists.

Hence, since the term turiya or the 'fourth' implies the existence of three other states, it is actually not an appropriate name for the only state that truly exists. Therefore, though the true state of 'wakeful sleep' is named turiya, it could more appropriately be named atita, 'that which transcends'.

In other words, since it is the one absolute reality and is therefore completely devoid of all relativity, it transcends not only the three relative states of waking, dream and sleep but also the equally relative concept that it is the 'fourth' state. This is the reason why it is also described as turiyatita, a term that literally means 'that which transcends the fourth'.

The above verse was composed by Sri Ramana as a summary of the following teachings that he had given orally and that Sri Muruganar had recorded in verses 937 to 939 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:

When all the states [waking, dream and sleep], which are seen as three, disappear in sages, who have destroyed ego [the self-conceited sense of being a separate individual], turiya [the 'fourth'], which is the exalted state, is that which predominates in them excessively as atita [that which transcends all duality and diversity].

Since the states [waking, dream and sleep] that huddle together [enveloping us] as the three components [of our life as an individual consciousness] are mere apparitions [that appear and disappear] in the non-dual atita [the one all-transcending state], [which is] the state of [our real] self, [which is known as] turiya [the 'fourth'], [and] which is pure being-consciousness ['I am'], know that for those [three illusory states] [our real] self is the Adhi??hana [the single base upon which they appear and disappear, and] in which they [must eventually merge and] become one.

If the other three [states] were fit [to be described] as real, [only then would it be appropriate for us to say that] 'wakeful sleep', [which is the state of] pure jnana [knowledge], is the 'fourth', would it not? Since in front of turiya [the so-called 'fourth'] those other [three states] huddle together [that is, they merge together and become one], being [revealed to be] unreal [as three separate states], know that that [so-called 'fourth' state] is [in fact] atita [the transcendent state], which is [the only] one [real state].

Whereas the reality of our fundamental state of true self-knowledge is absolute, the seeming reality of our three ordinary states is merely relative — relative only to our mind, which alone knows them. However, when we experience the absolute state of true non-dual self-knowledge, we will discover that our mind was a mere apparition that never truly existed. Therefore when the phantom appearance of our mind is thus dissolved, all our three relative states of waking, dream and deep sleep, which are mere figments of our imagination, will dissolve along with it. After this dissolution of our mind, all that will remain is our natural state of 'wakeful sleep', the peaceful and non-dual state of absolute true knowledge."

Rigpa(vidya) is of a different flavor, in rigpa the localized substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or characteristics. Though rigpa(vidya) can't be accurately described (for purposes of allowing one to get an idea of it's nature) it is sometimes said to be akin to space itself.

asunthatneversets   
    
    Posts: 510
    Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm   



Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:55 am

    mr.marigpa wrote:Would you please define consciousness and its relationship to rigpa?


Consciousness arises from the admixture of the karmic winds with the tsal energy of rigpa.


    So the nature of Dharmakaya is emptiness and rigpa? Does it have any other elements?


The dharmakaya is endowed with light in conformity with it’s essence, emptiness and it’s nature, clarity.

    What happens to consciousness when we are resting in rigpa?


When we are in the state of being in instant presence or rigpa, at that moment consciousness subsides.

    So the TM practitioner with stable witnessing in waking and sleeping just has really good dualistic mindfulness?


So it would seem, since they do not have the knowledge of rigpa.



Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby xabir » Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:03 pm

    trevor wrote:If witnessing is alaya, then what does it mean from dzogchen point of view when it collapses? It's said to be unstable and is supposed to collapse automatically over time.
    Greg Goode describes the process in interview:

        NDM: When this witness collapsed was there an energetic component to this at all? Anything unusual occur?

        Greg Goode: It happened suddenly. It happened when I deeply realized that all separation between self and other, all objectivity, was a set-up. Even the witness. It was like a benevolent con job.

        The witness is inherently unstable. Yes, it does allow you to see through the false claims of separation that everything else has. But it accomplishes this by reinscribing in a very subtle way the very same separation.

        When I saw this, the con job was revealed. It was as though the "gaps" between seer and seen became consciousness.

        In a flash, the structure of the witness and its arisings became dismantled. There was an energetic occurrence, like a flow of sparkles or heat flowing up form my fingers through the heart area and out of the top of my head.

        This flow lasted for about 90 minutes and then settled down and vanished. But the separation has never returned. The other dualities that go along with the witness-gestalt have never returned either, such as the feeling of "this ... this ... this" or the sense of coming and going, or the feeling that anything is being seen. None of it ever returned.
        NDM: Didn't Atmananda say that just being stabilized as the witness is enough for moksha? What about residual samskaras? Can one escape samsara with samskaras or still acting on certain types of negative vasanas?

        Greg Goode: Yes, Sri Atmananda has said several times that the witness is enough for moksha. Because of possible copyright considerations, I won't quote Sri Atmananda, but See Atmananda's NOTES, Sections 125, 205, 884, 906, 913, and 1283.

        NDM: Would you say that when the witness collapses, this is the end of the journey or is there more to this?

        Greg Goode: When the witness collapses, one is free from language, reference and the dualistic assumptions required for "pointing." You might experience things as objectless love and radiance. But again, those very words are from a particular vocabulary that might or might not assemble itself for you. You won't have any sense that language hooks on to anything. In this realization there is freedom from the very path itself. I call this freedom "joyful irony" and talk about it a lot in my new book. In this freedom, you will find yourself using language without believing language. Your freedom is non-referential.

        Because of this, you won't be able to find a governing spiritual standard that dictates "you are finished" or "you still have development ahead of you."


Greg Goode describes a path of deconstructing objectivity by subsuming all perceptions to be One Awareness through the direct path pioneered by Advaita teacher Sri Atmananda. Through this investigation subject-object duality is subsumed into Brahman (subsuming objects into perceptions into the Awareness itself). Even though the Witness collapses into non-dual awareness free of subject-object division, it is still substantial non-duality. Whereas Dzogchen is about insubstantial (empty) non-duality. A further step from where Greg comes from would be to deconstruct the subjectivity and "One Awareness" or Brahman itself and that is where Buddhism and the teaching of anatta start to come in.

An article I wrote comparing insubtantial and substantial non-duality: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/08/substantial-and-insubstantial-non.html

P.s. Turiya (the fourth state) falls under the category "Self-Realization" in my article. Turiyatita (the state beyond the fourth) is substantial non-dualism after the collapse of the Witness. Turiyatita is the furthest that Advaita Vedanta (traditional and neo) and Kashmir Shaivism brings you.



Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:53 am

    mzaur wrote:

        asunthatneversets wrote:Rigpa(vidya) is of a different flavor, in rigpa the localized substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or characteristics. Though rigpa(vidya) can't be accurately described (for purposes of allowing one to get an idea of it's nature) it is sometimes said to be akin to space itself.



    Abiding background is pure awareness separate from phenomena, right? Brahman or Self. Could you clarify what the bold means? Advaita defines Brahman as empty of attributes, but I surmise you are using empty in a different way.

    I think I know what you mean. It's just that I bet some people read these forums and think empty means something different, like how Advaita uses it.


The abiding background can either be (i)awareness separate from phenomena or (ii)awareness merged with phenomena. In either case there is the faculty of awareness which is assumed to be existent. Advaita defines Brahman as being empty of attributes because it is 'that' which knows(the knower). The "knower" is attributeless because through investigation it is unaccounted for in anything perceivable or knowable. In advaita the term neti-neti is implemented (to discover this faculty) which means "not this, not that". So using this negative approach one disavows every conceivable aspect of one's experience until the "knower"(awareness) itself is all that remains. The process is much like; "I am not the body, because I am aware of the body - I am not my thoughts, because I am aware of my thoughts, etc...", so the process retracts into the realm of the formless observer. Since this formless awareness is posited to be unstained by any phenomenal appearance (or designation), it is said to be empty of attributes, unassailable and eternal. Awareness (then still assumed to be embodied) is the atman, and upon actualizing the differentiation between the atman and characteristics which allegedly compose the personal self(jivatman), and external world, the next step is to merge the atman with the brahman(universal self).

Taken from Wikipedia:
"In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism it refers to one's true self beyond identification with phenomena. In order to attain salvation/liberation (moksha) a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana) which is to say realise experientially that one's true self is identical with the transcendent self (paramatman) that is called Brahman."

The merging of the atman and brahman resembles the process involved in buddhism, however the brahman is conceived to be an ultimate suchness. Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. Whereas in buddhism, no such ground nor ultimate suchness exists.

This "ground of all being" is referred to in dzogchen as the alaya. About this Jigme Lingpa states:
"If... when you examine that which abides, the mere reflexive luminosity (rang gsal) of the alaya-vijnana comes up as truly accomplished, then you approach the mistake of the Anekantavada mind-only doctrine."

Jigme Lingpa sets out what he understands the Anekantavada position to be(which mirrors the sentiments of advaita vedanta);
"We hold that the outer object does not exist, and the awareness that apprehends it does not exist either. The awareness that realizes the apprehender and apprehended as nondual is a reflexive awareness and a reflexive luminosity. This is designated as truly existent. This is the alaya-vijnana. Actions and their result are based on it."

The Anekantavada position is criticized for attributing reflexive awareness with true existence. The terms reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity are often used in the Great Perfection, and figure frequently in the Longchen Nyingtig texts themselves. Jigme Lingpa cannot criticize the use of the terms themselves. He must object to the designation of them as being truly established, that is, existent. As the passage from the Khyentse Melong suggests, this is also a criticism of the position that holds the alaya-vijnana, the basis of consciousness, as the basis of both samsaric and nirvanic awareness. For Jigme Lingpa, and his Seminal Heart sources, the alaya-vijnana is samsaric in nature, a result of delusion and separation from the ground...."

This is why the distinctions between the two types of basis are employed in Dzogchen, the nirvanic basis known as the ground(gzhi) and the samsaric basis of consciousness, the alaya(kun gzhi). One basis, two paths.

So the term "empty" in the context of this statement,

    asunthatneversets wrote:....in rigpa the localized substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or characteristics....


is using 'empty' to show that the notion of a localized abiding substratum is erroneous because it is a dependently originated designation. It is an imputed abstraction born of delusion and is solely the product of misconstrued illusory faculties of mind, mistaken as inherent aspects of experience. These faculties do not constitute being nor non-being and certainly do not result in a localized and enduring substratum which is subject-to and/or merged in/with experience. Though the brahman is also considered to be nondual, timeless, spaceless etc... it is still considered an enduring suchness which is identified with and considered eternal. The nondual, timeless and spaceless aspects of brahman are imputed characteristics or attributes of this 'suchness'(brahman) which is posited to reside beyond the pale of one's intellect(and limited scope of understanding) because one is indeed 'that'. A description along the lines of(and I paraphrase); It hears but cannot be heard, it sees but cannot be seen, it knows but cannot be known, is used to point to the brahman which implies that one cannot know it, because one is indeed it, just as teeth cannot bite themselves, nor fire burn itself. So it has a flavor of taking your limited and temporal beingness and transforming it into a limitless and eternal suchness.

Œakyamuni Buddha came along and revised this testament of eternal beingness championed by hindus/advaitins proclaiming it wasn't the final truth. He therefore created the doctrine of anatman(anatta) where he essentially stated that those who attest that the atman is equivalent to brahman are still victims of a subtle clinging which prevents them from accessing the ultimate truth. He taught that the alleged state of 'being one with brahman' is merely a re-packaging of one's present state of being, tantamount to simply labeling it as something else. The claim that one is indeed brahman(vast, eternal, undying) is merely an escape which doesn't remove the fundamental delusion (one is fastened to) because one doesn't want to lose oneself. One hasn't let go.

Dzogchen avoids (the perpetual evolution of) this fundamental delusion through the direct introduction of one's true nature, which is the union of clarity(luminosity) and emptiness. So right from the start, the mistaken ground of brahman is forsaken as a delusion. This is an empty cognizance, unestablished and illusory. The aspect of ones nature which is mistaken as an abiding substratum is the clarity of the natural state.

    Namdrol wrote:

        gad rgyangs wrote:there is the irreducible presence of the here and now where we find ourselves.



    It's reducible, thank goodness.

    In any event, what you are talking about is the famous "clarity" aspect of the mind, the famed Descartes trope, "I can doubt everything but that fact that I am doubting". But this hardly constitutes "the fact of the existent".



Xabir shared this insight from Zen Priest Alex R. Weith in the "No-Self And Rigpa" Thread which also addresses the common error of mistaking clarity as an abiding ground:

    xabir wrote: (quote from: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html) Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

    On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position.The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatagarbha, or whatever we may call it,

    As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

    Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.' (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta)."

    "What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (Aha?kara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called anatta (Non-atma).

    It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly. "

    This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

    The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

    The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

    At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.



Bahiya Sutta:
In the seen, there is only the seen,
In the heard, there is only the heard,
In the sensed, there is only the sensed,
In the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here(subject);
This Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
In the seen, only the seen,
In the heard, only the heard,
In the sensed, only the sensed,
In the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there(object),
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that you are therefore
located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.
However this statement could still be misinterpreted as implying that the sensory processes do indeed give way to established objects, which in turn constitute some form of suchness. Such a conclusion would be a grave misunderstanding.

Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby Malcolm » Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:20 am

    anjali wrote:

        Namdrol wrote:Cit is alaya, something relative which is dispensible, from the perspective of Dzogchen.



    Ok. Here is a glossary definition of chit from a book of Ramana Maharshi's teachings: "consciousness; this is not the antonym of unconsciousness, it is unmediated self-awareness." Perhaps this is not a typical definition within the Advaita tradition or the one adopted within Dzogchen.

    I'm not a scholar so I wouldn't be able to seriously debate this, but this definition of chit seems to align with what in Sanskrit might be called svasamvedana, or in Tibetan, rang-rig (rang gi rig pa), which has been translated as awareness of itself or self-reflexive awareness.


rang gis rig pa is not svasa?vedana. rang gi rig pa is rang rig. The latter has the genetive particle gi, where as the former was the instrumental particle gis.

Rang gi rig pa i.e. svasa?vedana means knowlege of itself. This is conditioned and relative because it is a self-knowing consciousness. This is mind, not nature of the mind.

so sor rang gis rig pa i.e. atmyavedana means "personal knowledge" and is the basis for rang rig in Dzogchen texts. We find this in constructions common in Dzogchen texts (as well as others) in the term so sor rang gis rig pa'i ye shes, or as Kapstein translates it "personally intuited gnosis". This nature of mind, not mind.

Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:04 am

    mzaur wrote:

        asunthatneversets wrote:Dzogchen avoids (the perpetual evolution of) this fundamental delusion through the direct introduction of one's true nature, which is the union of clarity(luminosity) and emptiness. So right from the start, the mistaken ground of brahman is forsaken as a delusion. This is an empty cognizance, unestablished and illusory. The aspect of ones nature which is mistaken as an abiding substratum is the clarity of the natural state.



    Are you saying that you do not need right view in Dzogchen? If we look at case study Jax, he received direct introduction numerous times from Rinpoche, yet his experience, as he describes it, is very Brahman.


Right view is imperative for those implementing dzogchen as a gradual path(as opposed to those rare few to immediately actualize realization). Any wrong misconception can throw one off the right path... and even once the natural state has been actualized becoming distracted from the view(or vision/tawa) is a defeating deviation. Even practitioners moving through the four visions are in danger of regression if perfect discipline isn't executed;

"Furthermore, when [the meditator] has emerged from the alaya-vijnana, because of the blazing lamp of the dharmakaya's luminosity, his nature remains free from elaboration. However, if he has not perfected his skill in the wisdom that shines out in vipaœyana(meaning a meditational view employed in tögal in this context), then, being enveloped in the alaya as before, that lamp of luminosity will be extinguished and no longer present".

So to clarify what you found questionable, I was just saying that in dzogchen (and particularly semde) the natural state is presented as the union of clarity and emptiness, and once the view is introduced/discovered it is then reinforced further (by the teacher) as a luminous emptiness implying utter absence(even though these attributes are quite explicitly known upon it's actualization). In Advaita Vedanta the state sought after is presented as an abiding suchness equivalent to one's true nature as the eternal absolute(brahman).

    mzaur wrote:Also, I was wondering about the mirror analogy used in Dzogchen... as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche wrote in Crystal and Way of Light:

    "And by way of an example, this voidness is said to be like the fundamental purity and clarify of a mirror. A master may show the disciple a mirror and explain how the mirror itself does not judge the reflections arising in it to be either beautiful or ugly; the mirror is not changed by whatever kind of reflection may arise; nor its capacity to reflect impaired. It is then explained that the void nature of the mind is like the nature of the mirror, pure, clear, and limpid, and that no matter what arises, the void essence of the mind can never be lost, damaged, or tarnished."

    How is this analogy not talking about an abiding background?

Yeah the mirror can be mistaken as representing an abiding background which has the capacity to reflect. But that is only if one focuses on the mirror as an object beholding reflections (which I'm sure is a common error but isn't what Rinpoche was suggesting). It's important to carefully investigate how the analogy is presented... it's not the mind is like the mirror, but the nature of mind is like the nature of the mirror, in that, the void nature of mind is empty yet luminous. So the essential quality (or nature) of the mirror is that it reflects, but is that essential quality or characteristic a tangible thing or suchness? Can you roll or bounce the mirror's capacity to reflect? Is that essence or capacity located anywhere? Is it blue or green? Or any color or shape? No, it isn't, it cannot be identified as 'this or that' yet it is known clear as day. And much like the mirror this innate, empty, luminous, natural essence and capacity of mind, reflects yet does not hold and remains unscathed. The reflections are not inherently part of the mirror's nature, but are product of it and inseparable from it... and "it"(the nature) is an indistinguishable quality which cannot be pigeonholed.

(And when I say indistinguishable quality I don't mean to imply that it's a qualitative suchness or that the quality belongs to an implied connotative suchness, it's not established or unestablished in any way... being primordially unborn it evades even itself).



Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:09 am

    mzaur wrote:

        asunthatneversets wrote:Yeah the mirror can be mistaken as representing an abiding background which has the capacity to reflect. But that is only if one focuses on the mirror as an object beholding reflections (which I'm sure is a common error but isn't what Rinpoche was suggesting). It's important to carefully investigate how the analogy is presented... it's not the mind is like the mirror, but the nature of mind is like the nature of the mirror, in that, the void nature of mind is empty yet luminous. So the essential quality (or nature) of the mirror is that it reflects, but is that essential quality or characteristic a tangible thing or suchness? Can you roll or bounce the mirror's capacity to reflect? Is that essence or capacity located anywhere? Is it blue or green? Or any color or shape? No, it isn't, it cannot be identified as 'this or that' yet it is known clear as day. And much like the mirror this innate, empty, luminous, natural essence and capacity of mind, reflects yet does not hold and remains unscathed. The reflections are not inherently part of the mirror's nature, but are product of it and inseparable from it... and "it"(the nature) is an indistinguishable quality which cannot be pigeonholed.

        (And when I say indistinguishable quality I don't mean to imply that it's a qualitative suchness or that the quality belongs to an implied connotative suchness, it's not established or unestablished in any way... being primordially unborn it evades even itself).



    Thanks for your response.

    Would it be accurate then to say that there is no mirror apart from the arising reflections, that indeed there actually is no mirror at all, only reflections?
"All that arises
is essentially no more real
than a reflection,
transparently pure and clear,
beyond all definition
or logical explanation.
Yet the seeds of past action,
karma, continue to cause further arising.
Even so-
know all that exists
is ultimately void of self-nature
utterly non-dual!"
- Nirmanakaya Buddha

"All dharmas are like reflected images,
clear and pure
without turbulence,
ungraspable, inexpressible,
truly arisen from cause and from action."
- (Different translation of the above quote)

"Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,
awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things."
- Padmasambhava

And here are some other quotes which refute turiya and the view of tirthikas:

"Although [tirthikas] have many different beliefs, when condensing the root of all of them, there are two: proponents of eternalism and proponents of nihilism. The proponents of eternalism believe that either the Self, Time, the Almighty, […] is the creator of the entire world. They hold that this creator is permanent. […] The proponents of nihilism claim that the present world originated by itself without causes, such as past karma; that consciousness occurred suddenly from the four elements; and that since it is discontinued at the time of death, it is pointless to exert oneself on the path in order to achieve liberation. All of these […] are, however, proponents of the existence of a self."
- Mipham Rinpoche

"Moreover, as for this diversity of appearances, which represents relative truth,
not even one of these appearances is actually created in reality, and so accordingly they disappear again.
All things, all phenomenal existence, everything within Samsara and Nirvana,
Are merely appearances (or phenomena) which are perceived by the individual's single nature of the mind.
On any particular occasion, when your own (internal) mind-stream undergoes changes,
then there will arise appearances, which you will perceive as external changes.
Therefore, everything that you see is a manifestation of mind.
And, moreover, all of the beings inhabiting the six realms of rebirth perceive everything with their own distinct karmic vision.
The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of eternalism as against nihilism.
Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its own view.
Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be elucidated in various different ways.
Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise), becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence.
Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are aware in your mind,
Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood."
- Padmasambhava


........

Distinction Between The Buddha-Essence Of Dzogpa Chenpo And Of Yogācāra:

"In Dzogpa Chenpo the Intrinsic Awareness is designated as self-awareness and self-clarity. But it is free from elaborations and non-existence. So it is superior to the thoroughly established self-awareness and self-clarity of consciousness of the Yogācārya school. Longchen Rabjam explains:

In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom. But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogācārya, the Mind Only School, does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind. As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehended and apprehender have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual.

As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes. Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the great spontaneously accomplished ultimate sphere, and the naked self-clarity Intrinsic Awareness, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it. It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find (in Dzogpa Chenpo) any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity, and non-duality of apprehender and apprehended of the Mind Only School."

- Longchen Rabjam (excerpt from "The Practice Of Dzogchen" pg. 103

........

'Cognition of self-awareness' = self-reflexive awareness (or simply 'reflexive awareness'), it certainly isn't foreign to yogācāra and dzogchen, nor is it foreign to buddhism in general.

"There is another aspect of the Yogācāra doctrine, related to the mind-only doctrine, that is criticized in Yeshe Lama and elsewhere in Jigme Lingpa's work: the concepts of reflexive awareness (rang rig) and reflexive luminosity (rang gsal). These terms near-synonyms, are fundamental of the Yogācāra understanding of the way the mind works. They refer to the activity of a mind that does not cognize phenomena as extrinsic: it is cognizant only of itself, and, like a lamp that needs no other light source to be visible, it illuminates itself. Both terms were utilized in this way by Śāntarakṣita in his eighth-century works setting out the Yogācāra Svātantrika Madhyamaka position.

Jigme Lingpa writes in Yeshe Lama, 'If...when you examine that which abides, the mere reflexive luminosity (rang gsal) of the ālāyavijñāna comes up as truly accomplished, then you approach the mistake of the Anākāravāda mind-only doctrine.' We have seen above how the Sākāravāda form of Yogācāra is criticized by Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa, based on the distinction between mere perceptions and the objective basis for perceptions. The Anākāravāda form of Yogācāra, which did not accept the ultimate reality of consciousness as the objective basis for perceptions, is criticized for a different reason. In his Khyenste Melong, Jigme Lingpa sets out what he understands the Anākāravāda position to be:

'We hold that the outer object does not exist, and the awareness that apprehends it does not exist either. The awareness that realizes the apprehender and apprehended as nondual is a reflexive awareness and a reflexive luminosity. This is designated as truly existent. This is the ālāya-vijñāna. Actions and their result are based on it.'

The Anākāravāda position is criticized for attributing reflexive awareness with true existence. The terms reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity are often used in the Great Perfection, and figure frequently in the Longchen Nyingtig texts themselves. Jigme Lingpa cannot criticize the use of the terms themselves. He must object to the designation of them being truly established, that is, existent. As the passage from Khyenste Melong suggests, this is also a criticism of the position that holds the ālāya-vijñāna, the basis of consciousness, as the basis of both samsaric and nirvanic awareness. For Jigme Lingpa, and his Seminal Heart sources, the ālāya-vijñāna is samsaric in nature, a result of delusion and separation from the ground, as I have shown in chapter 4. Thus these criticisms of the Yogācāra are rooted in the Seminal Heart distinction between two types of basis, the nirvanic basis known as the ground (gzhi) and the samsaric basis of consciousness, the ālaya (kun gzhi). Because the distinction is not made in the Indian Yogācāra texts, the versions of reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity found there are considered flawed. Yet the Seminal Heart owed a great debt to Yogācāra philosophy in it's treatments of both samsaric and nirvanic awareness, and this is why Jigme Lingpa, like Longchenpa before him, felt the need to strongly distinguish the differences between the models of awareness in Yogācāra and Seminal Heart literature."

- Sam Van Shaik (Approaching The Great Perfection, pg. 84)

........

That's your own thesis? That's all well and good but your thesis is only validating the statement that longchenpa made above. Dzogchen doesn't implement a subject(ive)-object(ive) dichotomy but instead finds the two to be empty from the very beginning. In dzogchen, ignorance is the basis for all phenomena (dharmas), the notion of a personal self (ātman) falls under that umbrella.

And this isn't regarding dzogchen but in reference to your thesis: realizing the emptiness of mind should in theory cause one to realize of the emptiness of all things, like you stated, but this isn't always the case, hence the two-fold emptiness (anattā/anātman & śūnyatā). The realization of anātman should lead to the realization of śūnyatā since both sides of the dichotomy are dependent on one another (and that the notion of a dichotomy is an imputation of mind in the first place), but depending on the amount of karmic traces one is afflicted with there is sometimes a gap in those insights.

In dzogchen, the empty aspect of the nature of mind is meant to cover this two-fold emptiness from the very beginning through recognizing primordial purity. Within that primordial purity nothing has ever been established which is later revoked, so phenomena is not "cut with the razor of emptiness" as Jigme Lingpa says, but is inherently empty.

The difference is that within dzogchen nothing is established, which contrasts the Yogācāra view that everything is mind.

........

I take it you're implying that the absolute nature and dependently arisen nature still inherently exist? And that the imaginary nature is the nature which is absent when ignorance is absent?

How can the absolute nature be inherently existent? Isn't the absolute dependent upon the relative? If the relative is merely a product of ignorance, upon the removal of the relative the absolute would likewise be negated. We can't have a one sided coin. The dependently arisen nature, emptiness, should negate the imaginary and absolute, along with itself.

........

The inherent nature of phenomena is "absolute" and "dependently arisen"? A dichotomous separation of experience into internal and external is certainly a notion which is product of imputation. Where are you finding an internal field of perception? Or an external? Where is the dividing line between these two fields?

........

There are no internal or external fields. The only things that obscure pure perception are all of these notions which are imputed onto experience. Mere appearance (which is simply neutral experience devoid of imputed conceptual overlay) is precisely thusness. Or are you defining 'thusness' as non-dual perception? Again I'm not seeing where you're locating external phenomena, the only thing that makes phenomena seem external is the erroneous identification with the body (which is ultimately an imputation itself) and the notion that there are internal facets of experience which exist within the body. 

........

Perhaps. I would have to read what the differences are in the yogācāra traditions. At any rate, both phenomena and consciousness (and/or the union or separation of the two) are considered empty in dzogchen.

........

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can

........

    "So in D, what is the relationship between mind and rigpa"

    Mind is the same as it is in prasanga madhyamaka, completely dependently originated and forming through the same process that everything apparently existent arises from (the 12 nidanas). Mind is called sems in dzogchen and is the driving force behind samsaric (afflicted) proliferation.

    Rigpa is knowledge of the nature of mind, the nature of mind is the nonduality of the mind's essence (emptiness) and nature (clarity). All dependently originated. Rigpa is equivalent to enlightenment in the classical sutras, it's 100% empty and illusory. Everything is illusory in dzogchen.

    "and awareness and emptiness?"

    The term awareness is used alot in d-word translations, and the translations do have the potentiality to convey a very advaita like feel to the teaching when they're merely read at face value. There's also buddhist dzogchen and Bon dzogchen, the bon dzogchen tends to be somewhat more essentialist since it doesn't have a buddhist foundation and it also claims that the dzogchen view of emptiness and the buddhist view of emptiness are different, buddhist dzogchenpas disagree. But overall awareness is also dependently originated and therefore illusory and unestablished.

    Emptiness is the same, everything that appears is empty. There is however afflicted dependent origination and unafflicted dependent origination. Afflicted dependent origination is appearance which is product of ignorance (ma-rigpa) and unafflicted dependent origination is lhun-grub or the natural formation of the basis.

    Malcom wrote:

    " The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

    Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa)."

 "Is rigpa empty?"

    Completely.

    "Is it a synonym of awareness in those translations?"

    Not at all, the term awareness is just pointing to the fact of present wakefulness.

    "Pragmatically, as Dzogchen is taught on the ground, what aspect does the lion's share of the soteriological work?"

    This is the part that really defines dzogchen, the aspect that does the lion's share of the work is the fact that dzogchen is precisely the knowledge of the natural state (rigpa) and is therefore enlightenment itself. So it's not a causal vehicle that really incorporates 'work' because the basis, path and fruit are all simultaneously accomplished. The teacher points out the natural state, and the student either recognizes it or doesn't. If it's not recognized then there are teachings which aid in discovering that aspect, but the teachings themselves aren't dzogchen, dzogchen is only the experience and is therefore actually indescribable (though much describing happens naturally!)

    "Does Kagyu teach Dzogchen?"

    I'm pretty sure Kagyu focuses on mahamudra, and they actually tend to subordinate dzogchen as just another means no different than mahamudra, when there are big differences.
    Also the Kagyupas (being that they focus on mahamudra) designate thoughts and emotions as the dharmakaya, and dzogchen does not.

    "What is the difference between Dzogchen and Mahamudra?"

    Mahamudra and dzogchen are different methods and therefore end up being different paths. Mahamudra considers the basis (nature of mind) to be the kun-gzhi or alaya, which is the emptiness and clarity of the mind. In dzogchen the kun-gzhi is considered to be the basis of affliction (ignorance) and the basis (gzhi) in dzogchen has nothing to do with the mind. I recently attended a teaching by a guy named Keith Dowman and he was also teaching that the nature of mind was the kun-gzhi, I asked him what the difference is between the kun-gzhi and the gzhi and he said that it has to do with further refinement "purification" and release of subtle traces, but he said for now during that talk there was no need to get into that (being that the crowd in general had some people who were actually just learning of dzogchen for the first time).

........

Update: 27th February 2013

Earlier today Jackson shared an excerpt from Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche's 'Dzogchen Practice In Everyday Life'...

Jackson's post:
"Dilgo Khyentse wrote:

Vast unoriginated self-luminous wisdom space is the ground of being - the beginning and the end of confusion. The presence of awareness in the primordial state has no bias toward enlightenment or non-enlightenment. This ground of being which is known as pure or original mind is the source from which all phenomena arise. It is known as the great mother, as the womb of potentiality in which all things arise and dissolve in natural self-perfectedness and absolute spontaneity."

Jackson then commented: "Some here I am sure struggle with notions 'ground of being', 'the womb in ... which all things arise and dissolve.' These expressions are foreign to most Theravadins..."

I wanted to comment that this translation (and the way that Jackson is presenting it's context) is apparently proposing a 'ground-of-being' as a source of phenomena. In the context of dzogchen a ground-of-being is indeed posited, however for dzogchen the ground of being (and non-being, both & neither) is only ignorance (avidyā). This idea that phenomena only arise due to our habitual tendencies of grasping and clinging is a very important aspect of Buddhism which separates it from the Vedantic traditions. Traditions such as Advaita Vedanta and the like which posit a transcendental ground-of-being from which phenomena (as expressions of that ground) arise and subside. This is not the model that Buddhism employs, nor is it the model that dzogchen uses. The quote cited by Jackson above certainly does seem to be proposing such a 'ground', however if we look at an alternate translation of this text we will find that Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche's exposition does indeed accord with the traditional view of dzogchen....

Here is the alternate translation of the same section of DKR's teaching cited above:
"...The ground of samsara and nirvana is the ālaya (ignorance), the beginning and the end of confusion and realization...."

The term ālaya is a Sanskrit term which translates to kun gzhi in Tibetan, meaning 'all-ground' or the 'ground of all', 'universal ground' etc...

The Reverberation of Sound Tantra explains the etymology of 'kun gzhi' (ālaya):
"The etymology of 'kun' (all) lies in it's subsuming everything.
The etymology of 'gzhi' (ground) lies in it's accumulation and hoarding (of karmic imprints and propensities)."

The Reverberation of Sound also goes on to say:
"Here I will explain the kun gzhi (ālaya) to start off:
It is the ground of all phenomena and non-phenomena."

In Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche's quotation where he states that the ālaya is "...the beginning and end of confusion and realization..." he is saying this because the ālaya (being synonymous with ignorance [Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa]) is the basis for delusion and therefore one can say the ālaya is indeed the beginning of confusion. In the very same sentence DKR also states that the ālaya is the beginning of realization, he says this because due to the fact that ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) is naturally dependent upon knowledge (Skt. vidyā, Tib. rig pa) the ālaya is also the basis for liberation. The ālaya is the beginning, in the sense that ignorance (samsara) is the starting point on one's path towards liberation (nirvana) and that being the case, one can also say it serves as the basis for the end as well. 

"The kun gzhi (ālaya) is the foundation of everything;
It is the foundation of purification as well."
- The Uttara Tantra

So the notion of a 'ground of being' is put in perspective. Dzogchen does not posit a ground of being apart from the discursive elaborations of ignorance and imputation. When one's condition is purified of ignorance it is known that reality is non-arisen and unborn... emptiness. Hence the key term in the first translation Jackson cited: 'unoriginated'. The translation of ālaya (kun gzhi) as 'ground of being' is a viable option for translation, though in truth the ālaya is the ground of all 4 extremes (being, non-being, both and neither), leaving it at 'ground of being' (without context) again appears to be advocating for a Brahman-type source of phenomena which is not the case in the least.

(AEN: with regards to the 'All Creating King' or 'Kunjed Gyalpo', Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith has this to say -

"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara. 

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real. 

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real. In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins." ~ http://www.atikosha.org/2010/11/rigpa-ii.html)