Mr M asked me yesterday, "“The everyday practice of dzogchen is simply to develop a complete carefree acceptance, an openness to all situations without limit.”

- Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Dzogchen Practice in Everyday Life

Makes it sound simple

What do you make of this, Soh?"

Soh: 

This is actually a text by chogyam Trungpa but endorsed by dilgo khyentse.

https://app.box.com/s/xegntds90q29m5a5f0nbeuiq9u4d6u4r


Chogyam trungpa has lots of controversy and his behaviour certainly isnt exemplary of a buddhist let alone a realised teacher

I myself have doubts whether he even realised anatta or just attained a state of no mind

Nonetheless john tan and i do like that text in the link above

This should be everyday practice after anatta

So what he said at least here is of value regardless of his level of realization and actualization"

Mr. M: "Oh wow, very interesting. I didn’t know the quote was from Chogyam Trungpa. In context it’s even better."

• Christine Walsh

  Soh Wei Yu Consciousness AS appearances. Like the unending totality of all 6 types of sense experience combined. Breaking them down into distinct sense instances of the 6 types kept me looking in a confusion of division that is not truly there. John's chat was extremely instructive, don't know how I missed this for so long!

  

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 1d
  • Edited
• Active

  Soh Wei Yu

  Christine Walsh

  Have you had a recent realization of "Consciousness AS appearances" and how is it like experientially for you?

  The six types of consciousness are also provisional, but it is important in order to deconstruct the idea that consciousness is a singular and unchanging/inherently existing consciousness like brahman, some unchanging substance independent of conditions and various manifestations. The point is to point out the emptiness of inherent existence of consciousness, and also to point out dependent origination. The raft of the teachings of aggregates, six consciousness are not meant to be clung to or reified. See the sutta where Buddha scolded Bhikkhu Sati for holding substantialist view of consciousness: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi

  Also:

  https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../misguided-man-have...

  Misguided man, have I not stated in many discourses consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?

  Soh Wei Yu

  2m ·

  Shared with Your friends

  Looks like a great book by the Dalai Lama. It even quoted the sutta I always quote. https://www.amazon.com/Realizing-Profound.../dp/B09ZBKNZB7

  Yin Ling

  23m ·

  “Because it is easy to consider consciousness with its thoughts, feelings, moods, and opinions to be the person, it is worthwhile to examine this notion more closely. The Buddha clearly states that consciousness is not the self. In the Greater Sutta on the Destruction of Craving, he calls Bhikṣu Sāti and questions him about his wrong view that the consciousness is the self. The following dialogue ensues (MN 38.5):

  (The Buddha): Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another?

  (Sāti): Exactly so, Venerable Sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.

  (The Buddha): What is that consciousness, Sāti?

  (Sāti): Venerable Sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the “ the result of good and bad actions.

  (The Buddha): Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many discourses consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?

  Sāti’s view is that consciousness exists in and of itself, independent of conditions. Saying the self is that which speaks shows the I as an agent of the action of speaking. Saying the self feels is the notion that the I is a passive subject that experiences. “Here and there” indicates the self as a transmigrator that remains unchanging as it passes through many rebirths. This consciousness or self goes from life to life, creating karma and experiencing its results, but not being transformed or changing in the process. It has an unchanging identity that remains the same as it experiences one event after another and goes from one life to the next. In short, Sāti views the consciousness as an ātman or Self.

  The commentary explains that Sāti was an expert in the Jātaka Tales, in which the Buddha recounts his previous lives, saying, “At that time, I was[…]”

  Excerpt From

  Realizing the Profound View

  Bhikṣu Tenzin Gyatso, Bhikṣuṇī Thubten Chodron

  This material may be protected by copyright.

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 1m
  • Edited
• Active

  Soh Wei Yu

  "Just as the Buddhas have spoken of

  "I" and "mine" for a practical purpose;

  Likewise they spoke too of "aggregates",

  "Elements" and "sense-fields" for a practical reasons.

  Such things spoken of as the "great elements",

  These are fully absorbed into consciousness;

  Since they are dissolved by understanding them,

  Are they not falsely imputed?"

  - Nagarjuna: excerpt from his 60 Stanzas

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 1m
• Active

  Soh Wei Yu

  The cognizer perceives the cognizable;

  Without the cognizable there is no cognition;

  Therefore why do you not admit

  That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

  The mind is but a mere name;

  Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;

  So view consciousness as a mere name;

  Name too has no intrinsic nature.

  Either within or likewise without,

  Or somewhere in between the two,

  The conquerors have never found the mind;

  So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

  The distinctions of colors and shapes,

  Or that of object and subject,

  Of male, female and the neuter -

  The mind has no such fixed forms.

  In brief the Buddhas have never seen

  Nor will they ever see [such a mind];

  So how can they see it as intrinsic nature

  That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

  "Entity" is a conceptualization;

  Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;

  Where conceptualization occurs,

  How can there be emptiness?

  The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,

  This the Tathagatas have never seen;

  Where there is the perceived and perceiver,

  There is no enlightenment.

  Devoid of characteristics and origination,

  Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,

  Space, awakening mind and enlightenment

  Posses the characteristics of non-duality.

  - Nagarjuna

  -- similar quotes in this excellent compilation of writings by Kyle Dixon https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-sun-that-never... , and also this is good http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../advise-from-kyle_10...

  

  AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

  A Sun That Never Sets

  A Sun That Never Sets

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
  • 1m
  • 
    

  • Soh Wei Yu

    Christine Walsh Do note that even after nondual there are different degrees of subtleties in insight, like Andre described some of it in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../beyond-awareness.html pretty well

    

    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

    Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness

    Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness

    • Like
    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1m