"To reject practice by saying, ‘it is conceptual!’ is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided.”

— Longchenpa
 



Also see: Right Samadhi


Many people have a very warped understanding of the so called "highest teachings" such as Dzogchen and Mahamudra, thinking that these teachings allow us to bypass or skip meditation training, or that it does not require "practice" and "meditation". This cannot be further from the truth.

Here are the words from Lopon Malcolm, a qualified dharma teacher who was asked by his Dzogchen master, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa to teach Dzogchen -


Malcolm (Loppon Namdrol) wrote:

    Rongzom makes the point very clearly that Dzogchen practitioners must develop the mental factors that characterize the first dhyana, vitarka, vicara, pritvi, sukha and ekagraha, i.e. applied attention, sustained attention, physical ease, mental ease and one-pointedness. If you do not have a stable samatha practice, you can't really call yourself a Dzogchen practitioner at all. At best, you can call yourself someone who would like to be a Dzogchen practitioner a ma rdzogs chen pa. People who think that Dzogchen frees one from the need to meditate seriously are seriously deluded. The sgra thal 'gyur clearly says:

    The faults of not meditating are:
    the characteristics of samsara appear to one,
    there is self and other, object and consciousness,
    the view is verbal,
    the field is perceptual,
    one is bound by afflictions,
    also one throws away the path of the buddhahood,
    one does not understand the nature of the result,
    a basis for the sameness of all phenomena does not exist,
    one's vidya is bound by the three realms,
    and one will fall into conceptuality

    He also added:

    Dhyanas are defined by the presence or absence of specific mental factors.

    The Dhyanas were not the vehicle of Buddha's awakening, rather he coursed through them in order to remove traces of rebirth associated with the form and formless realms associated with the dhyanas.

...

    Whether you are following Dzogchen or Mahamudra, and regardless of your intellectual understanding, your meditation should have, at base, the following characteristics:

    Prthvi -- physical ease Sukha -- mental joy Ekagraha -- one-pointedness Vitarka -- initial engagement Vicara -- sustained engagement

    If any of these is missing, you have not even achieved perfect samatha regardless of whether or not you are using an external object, the breath or even the nature of the mind.

    ...

    Even in Dzogchen, the five mental factors I mentioned are key without which you are really not going to make any progress.

...

Samadhi/dhyāna is a natural mental factor, we all have it. The problem is that we naturally allow this mental factor to rest on afflictive objects such as HBO, books, video games, etc.

Śamatha practice is the discipline of harnessing our natural predisposition for concentration, and shifting it from afflictive conditioned phenomena to nonafflictive conditioned phenomena, i.e., the phenomena of the path. We do this in order to create a well tilled field for the growth of vipaśyāna. Śamatha ultimately allows us to have mental stability and suppresses afflictive mental factors so that we may eventually give rise to authentic insight into the nature of reality. While it is possible to have vipaśyāna without cultivating śamatha, it is typically quite unstable and lacks the power to effectively eradicate afflictive patterning from our minds. Therefore, the basis of all practice in Buddhadharma, from Abhidharma to the Great Perfection, is the cultivation of śamatha as a preliminary practice for germination of vipaśyāna.

  
 
....

Below the path of seeing, the dhyānas are just causes for rebirth. 

...

Without vipaśyanā, samādhi is useless——this is why there are three prajñās, not only one. Meditation just isn't the main point of Buddhadharma. Prajñā is.

.....

A perfect śamatha is nothing more than the first dhyāna, attended by five mental factors: vitarka, vicara, prithi, sukha and ekagraha. This is a universal definition.

The idea that it takes a year to develop this experience is ridiculous. If you understand what you are doing, you can develop this experience in as little as a single afternoon.

Since the mental factors of vitarka and vicara drop off above the first dhyāna, when one 's motivation is to engage in vipaśyāna, it is not appropriate to cultivate anything more than this.

....
 

Mastering śamatha is a preliminary practice for Dzogchen.  

....

Perfect śamatha = first dhyāna
 
....
 

You are free to do as you like, but you, and everyone else, will be a much more solid practitioner if you cultivate the first dhyana. It involves cultivating these five mental factors. You start with mindfulness of breathing, four foundations of mindfulness, and so on. This is no different, really, than reciting a mantra. A mantra is just another way to perfect śamatha.
 
.....
 
In every retreat, he talks about the five capacities: one of those is samadhi. That samadhi is just a one-pointed mind. In ChNN systems of SMS, after level two, one is expected to be able to sit in meditation for 2 hours a session. This is based on Rongzom's text we have been discussing. One practices either common śamatha or mantra practice, with an aim to arouse these five factors. Rongzom says it is irrelevant which way one practices as long as one combines them with Dzogchen view.  

...

Mastering śamatha is a preliminary practice for Dzogchen. 
 
.....
 
 
 
In the early period of Budddhism, there were two yānas, śamatha yāna and vipaśyāna yāna; beginners went to Śariputra to training in vipaśyāna for stream entry; then they would go train in śamatha with Maudgalyana for further progress.

Lance Cousins wrote a very interesting article about this.


….

When one loosely rests vidyā in its own state, after coarse and subtle concepts come to calmly rest on their own, vidyā vividly abides in its own state. That śamatha is called “dwelling in the essence of vidyā”. In that state there is no lethargy or agitation in vidyā. Clarity, pristine lucidity, vividness, nakedness, and limpidity respectively cannot be seen with the eye, cannot be described with words, and cannot be established as a thing. The clarity that is like seeing, the pristine lucidity that is like an experience, the vividness that is like description, the nakedness that is like apprehending a thing, and the limpidity that is like a thought occurs in vidyā in and of itself. That alone is the wisdom of vipaśyāna. Though śamatha and vipaśyāna are given two separate names, in essence there is no difference. 

-- Explanatory Tantra of Distinguishing Mind and Vidyā
 
 
 
.....................
 
 
 
 
The dhyāna being discussed is not the dhyāna discussed in Dzogchen teachings. The latter does not depend on mental factors, unlike the former. So the answer is a solid no. In fact, it is the opposite. Rig pa (knowledge of one's own state) brings about natural concentration (rang bzhin bsam gtan), which is unlike the dhyānas spoken of in the lower yānas. Longchenpa writes about this extensively.
 
 
.... 

In dzogchen teachings one is using many different methods to discover natural concentration. Discovering shamatha is relatively simple when you use the approaches taught in the dzogchen tantras, rather than relying on the gradual method introduced by Kamalshila.

Rigpa is knowledge of your own state, when you have it, you never lose it, even if you are distracted.

One point where I really disagree with Wallace is his idea that trekcho is Dzogchen shamatha. I really dispute this notion.
 
.....
 
In general, from the perspective of Dzogchen teachings, there are two kinds of persons: people who are inclined towards perceptual objects, and people who are inclined towards the self-appearance of vidyā. Teachings like semzins, tummo, chulen, etc., are oriented towards the former, and trekcho and thogal are oriented towards the latter.

In the section I mentioned, the progression is recognition, trust, and decisiveness. The Sound Tantra relates:

The recognition of one's own state is encountered with trust,
Decisiveness establishes one in confidence.


This is just a very concise summary of the basic principles of Dzogchen teachings that are reinforced by the Three Phrases and so on.

These days, practicing śamatha accompanied with Dzogchen view is sometimes referred to as trekcho, but it is not really trekcho. Trekcho cannot arise out of śamatha. As The Tantra Without Syllables states:

Though the nature of vidyā pervades all,
the dharmakāya is encountered in the intimate instructions.


While it is certainly the case that practicing śamatha or mantra recitation (they are equivalent) with a Dzogchen view is beneficial, it is not the actual path of Dzogchen.
 
.....
 
 
Prajñā is not acquired through samādhi at all. However, śila provides a basis for a focused mind (samādhi), and a focused mind provides a basis for prajñā.

Prajñā is acquired through hearing (śrutimayāprajñā), reflection (cintamayāprajñā), and cultivation (bhāvanamayīprajñā).

The dhyānas are not required for this at all. Samādhi is just mental one-pointedness on a object. For most people, that would be TV, these days.
 
.... 

The only difference between the samādhi of watching TV and the training of samādhi in the Dharma is that the former is contaminated, and the latter is not. But the samādhi, the mental factor, is identical in both cases, only the object is different. What makes the samādhi part hard is that it is difficult to shift one's focus from mundane contaminated objects to mundane uncontaminated objects, such as the path dharmas. Hence, the need for śila as a basis for samādhi. But this has nothing actually to do with samādhi itself. Samādhi can be focused wherever one likes. And in the case of a practitioners, that concentration is focused on Dharma. It also has nothing developing rarified samadhis, etc. Samādhi here just means being able to focus the mind at will. Thats it. People keep turning these things into strange beasts. We avoid things that disturb our minds (śila), so that we can focus (samādhi) on developing the three wisdoms. That's it. It's not complicated.

Its better to understand the essence of a thing, rather than pile elaboration on top of elaboration.
 
....

Samadhi is a natural mental factor of one pointedness. People with no experience, who like to follow books like recipe guides, say such things as "first dhyāna is absolutely mandatory for the path of seeing." But then you have to ask them if they have discovered the path of seeing. If they say no, then obviously they are just going to the basis of what they have heard or read in a book. If they say yes, there are other tests you can apply.

In Mahāyāna, the samadhi part is not perfected until the fifth bhumi. There is no requirement for the first dhyāna to realize the first bhumi. The first bhumi merely requires realization of śunyatā. That can come about as a result of the union of śamatha and vipaśyāna, or it can be arrived at merely through vipaśyāna. It depends on the person. All that is really necessary is that aspiring bodhisattva can focus on their analysis on the emptiness of objects without being distracted, but is certainly does not mean that they have to first perfect all four or five factors of the first dhyāna. It won't harm them if they do, but it is not required.

You should examine Discerning the Middle from the Extremes, it presents a concise summary of the five paths and how they are realized in Mahāyāna. Madhyamaka texts do not discuss this so much, at least, not early ones.
 
 
 .....
 
That's what I meant by people who just read books. The only concentration one needs is to be able to focus on one's analysis without being distracted. That's it.

If one goes chasing after samadhi, one will waste a lot of time and never realize emptiness, and that is a fact.
  


.....



The point is that uncommon śamatha and vipāśyāna is based on knowledge you have. Common śamatha and vipāśyāna is no different than sutrayāna practice. The former is based on direct introduction, and it is basically the same as the four samadhis of Dzogchen Sems sde: calmness (gnas pa), immovability (mi g.yo ba), nonduality (gnyis med) and natural perfection (lhun grub).

The first is called "śamatha," because one cultivates an experience of a state of calmness. The second is called "vipaśyāna," because one recognizes that movement and calmness are identical in nature. These leads to the experience of their nonduality, and finally, the experience of natural perfection.

But all four of these samadhis are based on having had an experience of the nature of the mind based on direction introduction. In reality, these samadhis are not practiced gradually but are four qualities of equipoise on the nature of the mind.

It is a very common belief among Dzogchen teachers that Gampopa borrowed the four samadhis and changed their names, since he had started out as a Dzogchen practitioner. Further, Dzogchen teachers very often teach the four yogas of Mahāmudra when they teach sems sde, for example, Adzom Drugpa, Tulku Orgyen and so on.

M
 
 
....
 
Incorrect. They are conceptual. That's why they are not liberations. In ordinary people, engaging in them generates traces, latent afflictions, which then have to be purified. They create paths of rebirth. This is very clearly explained in Abhidharma. They are mundane and samsaric.  

...
 
 

Nope.

The dhyāna to which Chan refers is based on the realization of reality, not supported by mental factors nor supported on a conceptual object.



.....



https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=616369#p616369
“Re: Is first dhyāna necessary for the first bhūmi?
Report Quote
Post Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:37 am
Caoimhghín wrote: ↑
The title says it all. Related: Is first dhyāna necessary for any particular significant degree of Bodhi?
Malcolm:
Nope.”
“Samadhi is a natural mental factor of one pointedness. People with no experience, who like to follow books like recipe guides, say such things as "first dhyāna is absolutely mandatory for the path of seeing." But then you have to ask them if they have discovered the path of seeing. If they say no, then obviously they are just going to the basis of what they have heard or read in a book. If they say yes, there are other tests you can apply.
In Mahāyāna, the samadhi part is not perfected until the fifth bhumi. There is no requirement for the first dhyāna to realize the first bhumi. The first bhumi merely requires realization of śunyatā. That can come about as a result of the union of śamatha and vipaśyāna, or it can be arrived at merely through vipaśyāna. It depends on the person. All that is really necessary is that aspiring bodhisattva can focus on their analysis on the emptiness of objects without being distracted, but is certainly does not mean that they have to first perfect all four or five factors of the first dhyāna. It won't harm them if they do, but it is not required.
You should examine Discerning the Middle from the Extremes, it presents a concise summary of the five paths and how they are realized in Mahāyāna. Madhyamaka texts do not discuss this so much, at least, not early ones.”
“That's what I meant by people who just read books. The only concentration one needs is to be able to focus on one's analysis without being distracted. That's it.
If one goes chasing after samadhi, one will waste a lot of time and never realize emptiness, and that is a fact.”
“Below the path of seeing, the dhyānas are just causes for rebirth.”
“Without vipaśyanā, samādhi is useless——this is why there are three prajñās, not only one. Meditation just isn't the main point of Buddhadharma. Prajñā is.”
“Prajñā is not acquired through samādhi at all. However, śila provides a basis for a focused mind (samādhi), and a focused mind provides a basis for prajñā.
Prajñā is acquired through hearing (śrutimayāprajñā), reflection (cintamayāprajñā), and cultivation (bhāvanamayīprajñā).
The dhyānas are not required for this at all. Samādhi is just mental one-pointedness on a object. For most people, that would be TV, these days.”
“The only difference between the samādhi of watching TV and the training of samādhi in the Dharma is that the former is contaminated, and the latter is not. But the samādhi, the mental factor, is identical in both cases, only the object is different. What makes the samādhi part hard is that it is difficult to shift one's focus from mundane contaminated objects to mundane uncontaminated objects, such as the path dharmas. Hence, the need for śila as a basis for samādhi. But this has nothing actually to do with samādhi itself. Samādhi can be focused wherever one likes. And in the case of a practitioners, that concentration is focused on Dharma. It also has nothing developing rarified samadhis, etc. Samādhi here just means being able to focus the mind at will. Thats it. People keep turning these things into strange beasts. We avoid things that disturb our minds (śila), so that we can focus (samādhi) on developing the three wisdoms. That's it. It's not complicated.
Its better to understand the essence of a thing, rather than pile elaboration on top of elaboration.”


Appearance is exactly where non-duality is found. Appearance arisen from the union of emptiness and clarity; this is the freedom place.

If you look for the ground of all phenomena you will not find anything at all. Precisely this looking and not finding is the ground of all phenomena. Train the mind to be like space. Then forget space.

Mind’s activity is a phenomena. Mind’s deep, a groundlessness. Phenomena and mind’s activity share in common the baseless groundlessness. Again and again rest mind’s hurried activity in the expanse of its ownmost non-doing.

Mind’s deep, a groundlessness, is Original Innocence. Phenomena, also groundless, are Bright Virtue.

If you understand these two you will swiftly master the Buddha’s twofold path of Shamatha and Vipassana.


~  Traktung Rinpoche, Original Innocence
Reality is entirely mute.
Silent.
On its own, it's totally ineffable.
Intangible.
Nothing is conveying
From "its own side"
Anything
- any data, any information.
It's all construed
Fabricated
Set up
From the side of the mind
Through conceptuality.
Mind too
As well as these supposed mute objects
Are fabricated conceptually.
Conceptuality too is conceptually woven.
Outside conceptuality
Nothing is truly established.
Nothing is truly actualized.
However, neither are things
Outside of conceptuality
Non-existent.
"Outside of conceptuality"
However,
Too is established through language.
It's not all in the mind.
Despite the fact that
It is the mind
That is the great housebuilder.
The weaver of universes.
Of Samsara.
Of Nirvana.
The point of all this
Is to drop into a silence
That is beyond words.
And beyond the absence of words.
When the mind falls silent
Reality falls freely
Into an unfathomable abyss.
Into groundlessness.
Into voidness.
As voidness.
Comments
John Tan

John Tan André,

"When the mind falls silent
Reality falls freely
Into an unfathomable abyss.
Into groundlessness.
Into voidness.
As voidness."

Is that what u see when the mind falls silent? What abt the luminous phenominality u used to speak abt?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 18h
André A. Pais

André A. Pais John Tan the abyss and voidness here is not a blank. It is, as you say, luminosity. Undifferentiated - and thus without a ground - radiance.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 18h
John Tan

John Tan André, why the mind needs to b silent then? The luminous phenominality only manifests when mind is silent?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 18h
André A. Pais

André A. Pais John Tan
The point of all this
Is to drop into a silence
That is beyond words.
And beyond the absence of words.

Words are luminosity too, yes. But their meanings have to be seen through, otherwise luminosity will seem and feel solid. Solidity, duality, substantially, suffering, etc., are all established through deludedly applied language.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 18h
John Tan

John Tan André, u mentioned about the 3 tests of Chandrakirti in the other post, I supposed u r referring to the 3 definitions of conventionality? Any idea how is this luminosity related to the 3 definitions?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 18h
John Tan

John Tan I would say regardless of whether the mind is silent, conceptual or non-conceptual, things still appear solid, dual and substantial. The wisdom that sees through essence and characteristics penetrates far deeper than non-conceptuality. Ignorance is equally deep, non-conceptuality is not sufficient to put ignorance to rest.

Manage

· Reply · 18h
André A. Pais

André A. Pais John Tan, again:

The point of all this
Is to drop into a silence
That is beyond words.
And beyond the absence of words. ;)

I totally agree with you. Mere non-conceptuality is not enough. Newborn babies and animals are not Buddhas. We are not Buddhas in deep sleep.

By "all this" I mean thorough analysis, which results, I believe, in a silence that is not mere non-conceptuality and which can include, in fact, thoughts and concepts.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 17h
John Tan

John Tan André, imo ultimate analysis that conventional things are empty is the antedote for the conceptual mind to understand. The "taste" and recognition of "essence and characteristics" and emptiness must b brought to all levels, conceptual or non-conceptual, like how we recognized our childhood friends even after not seeing them for decades.

Manage

· Reply · 17h · Edited
Geovani Geo

Geovani Geo Andre. "The abyss and voidness here is not a blank. It is, as you say, luminosity. Undifferentiated - and thus without a ground - radiance."

When you say, "without a ground", what is it that is w/o the ground?

There is a subtlety here. Of course the ultimate Silence is groundless for there is nothing upstream of it. Otoh, "the mind that is the great housebuilder, the weaver of universes, of Samsara, of Nirvana" is grounded in that Silence. So when we say that "its all conceptually attributed" this "all" does have a ground, the Ultimate Silence.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 13h
John Tan

John Tan There never is/was any "ground" and if anything needs to be dropped to reach a point of silence, then it is a state that has entry and exit.

Silence or movement, both r appearances. The mind oscillates between the two poles as a result of non-recognition. The nature of mind and phenomena is empty and non-arisen, they have never deviated from their nirvanic quiescence.

Manage

· Reply · 8h
Geovani Geo

Geovani Geo John Tan, when you say, "silence or movement, both r appearances" you have attributed a significance to such silence that made it differ from nirvanic quiescencent silence that has no points of entry and exit. You are now speaking of the apparent manifested silence opposite to manifested movement.

Of course there is no ground when all there is is the ground, just as there is no silence that is not an appearance when all there is is such silence, which is the silence the OP seems to be referring too.

So, you have changed the nomenclature.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 4h · Edited
André A. Pais

André A. Pais Geovani Geo

>> When you say, "without a ground", what is it that is w/o the ground?

Reality is without a ground. What else could be without a ground?

>> Of course the ultimate Silence is groundless for there is nothing upstream of it.

That's the definition of ground (as source): that nothing is upstream of it. I don't agree with that. If nothing is upstream, no condition supports it. If the source is causeless, it is independent of everything else. It is useless then.

>> this "all" does have a ground, the Ultimate Silence.

I don't see any ultimate anywhere. In advaita, awareness (the Self) is ultimate. For me, that suffers from the same problem as the causeless source. Ultimate means independent. Independence destroys the functionality of interdependence. Thus it is said that independent or inherent existence is "an impossible mode / type of existence".

Manage

· Reply · 2h · Edited