Winston Tg shared this with me. Nicely expressed by Anzan Hoshin Roshi. From mirror bright to no mirror (anatman) realisation.

https://wwzc.org/dharma-text/difficulty-strangeness-beauty

Difficulty, Strangeness, Beauty

Presented by Ven. Anzan Hoshin roshi

Zazen-ji, December 13, 1988

Printed in Zanmai #7, Winter 1991 Issue

Good evening. This is the evening of Tuesday, December the 13th, 1988, and it is one day after the ninth year anniversary of the death of my own beloved teacher, Yasuda Joshu Dainen Hakukaze roshi... I think back to the time that I first arrived at Hakukaze-ji, to take up the practice of the Way of Zen under Joshu roshi.

When I arrived at the train station, somebody was there to greet me and to drive me to the monastery. We drove along a dirt road and it was raining. The rain was washing down the windows, and the wind-shield wipers were making their arcs through the path of the drops. After some time, we turned into a lane-way and I could see the farmhouse and the barn, trees and long grasses. The leaves of the trees were bowed under the pressure of the raindrops and the wind was moving the long grasses. I was told to wait there until Joshu roshi sent for me.

I looked for a place that was somewhat dry, to put down my sack. It was raining all around me. I put down the sack, sat on top of it, and waited. The rain fell. I had long hair at that point, and so I had hair in my eyes and I was breathing rain in and out of my nostrils. Since I was quite young, the rain and cold didn't particularly bother me physically, but mentally it did. I was pissed off. I sat there for four hours, because I knew that if Joshu roshi said to wait there, I had to wait there. I also knew, from my brief meeting with him some weeks before, that when he did call me in, he would say something like: “Aren't you even smart enough to come in from the rain?” And so I sat there and waited.

Finally a monk in a rain poncho came out and said “Please come in”. We went in through the back door into the kitchen. Joshu roshi looked at me and said, “Aren't you even smart enough to come in from the rain?”  He threw me a towel. Somehow I laughed.

This practice of Zen is difficult right from the very beginning. Sometimes it is difficult physically; our knees hurt, our back aches, we have to get up so early in the morning. Sometimes it is difficult because our feelings ache. This practice hurts our pride. It hurts our pride because we find ourselves in a situation beyond our control, even though everything is very clean, very sharp, very clear; you sit until the bell rings, then you take care of your zafu and you stand up. Despite the fact that things are so simple and there are so many straight lines in our practice, we find that it is out of our control. Thoughts and feelings come up which we would rather not have to face; thoughts that we've spent a lifetime convincing ourselves are not us; thoughts that we just do not have. We're brought face-to-face, again and again, with all of who and what we are. And so our pride is hurt.

When our pride is hurt, sometimes, this is truly the beginning of healing because, when we drop our pride, when we drop our humbleness, we can begin to find that another quality entirely will manifest: a quality of unshakeable confidence. The confidence of this moment. The confidence of the heart of our lives. This heart of our lives arises as the entirety of what we experience, the vastness and vividness of this present moment without barrier. This confidence that we learn, and we begin to be able to naturally manifest, is not the kind of confidence that arises out of a self-help course, or out of having toughened something up, of “knowing that we can take it”. It is an unconditional confidence. It is unshakeability. And so, when we hear terms like “the iron man”, or “dukkha”, or “the mile high cliff”, we begin to understand.

Sitting in the rain, being drenched by the rain, I began to feel the raindrops, to watch them explode around me as they touched the ground, or entered puddles, the slant of the rain changing with the direction and strength of the wind. This was so beautiful. Despite the fact that our practice is difficult, it is also very beautiful. When I actually noticed the raindrops, I felt and saw and breathed how beautiful they were.

When we begin to notice our lives, when we begin to practise this attention, we begin to understand an unconditional beauty beyond good and bad. We begin to understand our lives. At the moment that we truly drop attempting to understand our lives, when there is “no understanding”, our understanding is complete. When our understanding becomes complete, it is time to drop that and go yet further, because once we realise the unconditional confidence of the “mile high cliff”, it is time to take a step off that cliff.

Taking such a step, there can only be one step. There is no room or time for a second step. This is realizing this single bodymind as the display of all directions, of all times, and dropping this bodymind, dropping all directions, all times, so that one can act freely, can come in and go out, can range throughout the six realms, can dance atop the pile of the five skandhas and realise the Unborn Nature of all conditions.

Zen is not only difficult, not only beautiful, but also a very strange thing to do. When we attend to just how strange a thing it is to do, we are shocked. Yet, despite the fact that it is strange, it makes absolute and complete sense. There is something in us that responds “Yes!”, something in us which recognizes the strange things that the teacher says in dokusan and teisho. There is something in us that recognizes the beauty of this practice and finds itself at great ease in the midst of the difficulty.

It truly becomes very difficult to say anything about this practice. When we try to talk about this Way of Zen, as a whole, what seems difficult at one time, at other times seems easy. It is only when we pick up a particular facet of this practice, that we can say anything about it; but this practice is only a facet of a jewel called Zen. This practice of which we speak, in this moment, is only one of a hundred thousand facets of practice of this jewel of Zen. Our practice is changing from moment to moment. Our practice is turning from moment to moment; sometimes easy, sometimes difficult.

When we find it to be at its most difficult, we must realise that it is self-image that finds it difficult, and it is self-image that makes it difficult. It makes it difficult through wandering and sinking, through obsessing, through playing its games and strategies, through trying to make its deals and then finding that they just don't work, and it finds all of this so difficult it could just scream. But, what is it that is aware of this difficulty?  Where do the games and strategies come from? Where do they go?  When this thought arises, at the moment of its arising, it ceases. When this sound is heard, it is gone. Where is there difficulty in this?  Where is there ease in this?

The place of true practice is really the heart of our lives. The heart of our lives has no shape, has no form. Sometimes it looks like this wall, sometimes it feels like the floor, sometimes it feels like a dream, sometimes it is eating and drinking, sometimes it is driving along a highway, or wandering in the forest, sometimes it is morning and sometimes it is night. This heart of our lives has no form, no shape. It is defined by none of these thoughts and none of these feelings. It is completely unobstructed. The heart of our lives extends in all directions. It is the very direction that we face. It is the faceless face without direction, without time, without expression, without a smile, without a scowl.

The true place of practice is this heart, this Original Face. We practise to glimpse this Original Face. Once we do so, if we continue to practise, we will realise that it was the Original Face which had this glimpse and then, there is only seeing this Original Face. We discover that our life, all worlds, are simply the display of this Faceless Face and all Dharmas are reflections arising on the Mirror of Mind.

If we go yet further, we polish this Mirror, and we begin to realise its vastness and how far it extends in all directions. We realise that it truly is the place in which all dharmas arise. It is the arising of all dharmas. It is the decaying of all dharmas, it is this impermanence, it is this heartbeat, this breath. Going yet further, we see that, that which we were polishing itself shines. Even the dust that is gathered upon this Mirror is bright. We see that even the confusion, the strategies, the deep-rooted tendencies, are simply the display of this Mirror.

Going even further, (Roshi bangs nyoi staff on the floor), we shatter this Mirror, and then we're truly free. Being truly free, we realise that we need be nothing at all. We need not even be everything. We need not even be “one” with the All. It is at this point that we understand JUST THIS. It is at this point that we truly understand the heart of our lives. It is at this point that all understanding drops away, because we can no longer find a knower and a known, and there is just this Knowing.

Sometimes our practice is difficult and sometimes it is easy. Sometimes it is shallow and sometimes it is deep, but this practice is the transmission of freedom, it is the transmission of ourselves to ourselves.

Perhaps one of the most frustrating things in this practice is realizing that there is nothing that we can give our teacher and nothing that our teacher can give us. The teacher is just like our practice: something that we can't really understand. Our practice, our teacher, the environment of training and the Lineage of Ancestors simply points, simply question us, again and again: Who are you?  What is this body?  This mind? If the realization of the Buddha could be given to you, it could be taken away from you. What is it which cannot be given and cannot be taken?  What is it that you have always had so long? That you do not even have, because it is what you are?

Whether our practice is difficult or easy, this is what we must realise. This is what we must practise. Simply this questioning, this looking, this attending. We must realise what it is that attends and then we will realise the Mind of the Lineage, the Mind of the Buddhas and Dharma Ancestors, the mind of all beings.

Practice always begins now. It begins at the moment of hearing this sound. It begins at the moment of this breath. It begins this cold December evening. Practice begins wherever you are. Right now. Let's not avoid the difficulties of our practice. Let's not avoid the beauty of our practice. Let's not avoid being shocked by our practice. Let's not avoid that which recognizes what is being pointed to.

Please enter into this practice most fully. Enter into your lives most fully. Enter into this breath most fully. Sharpen and clarify your mindfulness of this moment. Live this moment fully, with the whole body. Live in each moment with the whole body until you realise what this living is, and then there will no longer be any question of “whole body”. There will be JUST THIS.

In this moment there is just this: just this moment, just this practice, just this difficulty, just this ease.

Please, practise to your utmost and enjoy yourselves.

The sequel to this transcript is Standing in the Rain (Tangaryo)

Also See: Teachers who Realised Anatta

In their journey towards a deeper understanding of nonduality and anatta, individuals frequently face the decision of whether to seek a teacher, guide, engage in one-on-one personal mentorship, participate in coaching programs, or explore other forms of spiritual guidance. This complex and nuanced topic has been extensively discussed in various online platforms, shedding light on the experiences and insights of different practitioners and teachers.

I, Soh, an admin of the Awakening to Reality Facebook group and co-author of AtR, addressed this topic by highlighting the practical challenges of offering mentorship while holding a full-time job. I emphasized that it's difficult to mentor a large community and maintain a separate career unless one decides to dedicate full-time to coaching, which would necessitate charging a fee for survival. This is a path I have chosen not to pursue, preferring to maintain my current career over giving up for full-time spiritual coaching​​.

The conversation extends to different paths within spiritual practice. Some practitioners, like Yin Ling, are inclined towards the Vipassana path, which leads more to nondual and anatta insights. Yin Ling's journey, detailed on the AtR website in the article "6) Nice Advice and Expression of Anatta from Yin Ling and Albert Hong + What is Experiential Insight?", provides valuable insights for those interested in this particular path.

Regarding Dzogchen teachings, Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith stands out as a key figure. He offers teachings and practice instructions through his website, www.zangthal.com, with a structured fee. You can watch this YouTube video (highly recommended) for an introduction to Acarya Malcolm’s Dzogchen teachings that was recommended by Sim Pern Chong on the AtR group: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html . Also, some of Malcolm’s writings can be found here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html . His approach includes regular Zoom sessions and encourages students to email their queries, albeit concisely due to his large student base and other professional responsibilities​​. 

Similarly, Zen teacher Venerable Jinmyo Osho Renge offers a long-distance training program in Zen, accessible via www.wwzc.org, which is akin to Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith's approach in terms of structure and fees. You can read some of her articles here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/04/tada.html and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/12/zen-master-ven-jinmyo-renge-senseis.html

On Reddit, a user inquired about finding a good nondual coach and guide. In response, I, Soh, referred to teachers like Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith and Zen teacher Venerable Jinmyo Osho Renge, emphasizing that while these teachers do charge for their services, the fees are reasonable considering the support they provide to their communities and temples. I pointed out the importance of finding a practice, community, and teaching that resonates with the individual, rather than seeking quick solutions through one-time sessions. There are of course, many awakened teachers apart from these two that I have mentioned.

The teachings of Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith are particularly recommended for those interested in a deeper understanding of Dzogchen. His approach is structured and includes Dzogchen texts he personally translated, regular teachings and recordings which are also made available through his online platform, and the possibility of personal guidance through email correspondence. This method ensures a comprehensive and structured approach to Dzogchen, accommodating both beginners and advanced practitioners.

For those seeking mentorship or guidance in spiritual practices, the path is not always straightforward. The availability of mentors and the structure of their teachings vary, and fees may be involved. It's crucial to find a path and a teacher that resonate personally, ensuring a sustained and meaningful engagement with the practice. Whether through online platforms, formal teachings, or personal mentorship, the journey towards understanding nonduality and anatta is a deeply personal one, shaped by individual circumstances and commitments.

In addition to the various paths and teachers discussed in the context of spiritual mentorship and guidance, the significance of finding an awakened teacher cannot be overstated. As I, Soh, shared with someone recently, the teachings of the first Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma offer profound insights into this matter.

Bodhidharma, esteemed as the first patriarch of Chan/Zen, marking him as a foundational and transformative figure in the lineage and teachings of this tradition, emphasizes the crucial role of a teacher in the journey towards enlightenment. In his teachings, he states, "To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature. Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha. If you don’t see your nature, being mindful of Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are not equal to it. Being mindful of Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good intelligence; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth in heavens, and making offerings results in future blessings — but no buddha. If you don’t understand by yourself, you’ll have to find a teacher to know the root of births and deaths. But unless he sees his nature, such a person isn’t a good teacher. Even if he can recite the twelve groups of scriptures he can’t escape the Wheel of Births and Deaths. He suffers in the three realms without hope of release. Long ago, the monk Good Star was able to recite the twelve groups of scriptures. But he didn’t escape the Wheel, because he didn’t see his nature. If this was the case with Good Star, then people nowadays who recite a few sutras or shastras and think it’s the Dharma are fools. Unless you see your own Heart, reciting so much prose is useless.

To find a Buddha have to see your nature directly. Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who’s free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don’t see your nature and run outwards to seek for external objects, you’ll never find a buddha. The truth is there’s nothing to find. But to reach such an understanding you need a good teacher and you need to struggle to make yourself understand. Life and death are important. Don’t suffer them in vain.

There’s no advantage in deceiving yourself. Even if you have mountains of jewels and as many servants as there are grains of sand along the Ganges, you see them when your eyes are open. But what about when your eyes are shut? You should realize then that everything you see is like a dream or illusion. If you don’t find a teacher soon, you’ll live this life in vain. It’s true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you’ll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn’t need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you’re so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you’ll understand.

People who don’t understand and think they can do so without study are no different from those deluded souls who can’t tell white from black.” Falsely proclaiming the Buddha-Dharma, such persons in fact blaspheme the Buddha and subvert the Dharma. They preach as if they were bringing rain. But theirs is the preaching of devils not of Buddhas. Their teacher is the King of Devils and their disciples are the Devil’s minions. Deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the Sea of Birth and Death.

Unless they see their nature, how can people call themselves Buddhas they’re liars who deceive others into entering the realm of devils. Unless they see their nature, their preaching of the Twelvefold Canon is nothing but the preaching of devils. Their allegiance is to Mara, not to the Buddha. Unable to distinguish white from black, how can they escape birth and death?

Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha; whoever doesn’t is a mortal. But if you can find your buddha-nature apart from your mortal nature, where is it? Our mortal nature is our Buddha nature. Beyond this nature there’s no Buddha. The Buddha is our nature. There’s no Buddha besides this nature. And there’s no nature besides the Buddha."

Also See: Teachers who Realised Anatta

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/24571221969159235/?__cft__[0]=AZUnS-PzRJld-zYkzFST-s-l2FKyO9_siUz5-sQ-xoKn3BktKDjSC-qsQoGiVyfnTZ6H2toXly-MEadEimWwFERUkxp158pPPz4JYFdgBnEMIySuqCrJqcNHj5B7sUBif6u3jECkIcKhGNg35BgjR3f-T5G9lySywvyicENojELJ76EhzPfr8UIcb8M_ZsxPrCQ&__cft__[1]=AZUnS-PzRJld-zYkzFST-s-l2FKyO9_siUz5-sQ-xoKn3BktKDjSC-qsQoGiVyfnTZ6H2toXly-MEadEimWwFERUkxp158pPPz4JYFdgBnEMIySuqCrJqcNHj5B7sUBif6u3jECkIcKhGNg35BgjR3f-T5G9lySywvyicENojELJ76EhzPfr8UIcb8M_ZsxPrCQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R

André A. Pais

Top Contributor

  · nrtdoepSso2m29053l31484cl5m64uh1l3c08t8h3i1ta3854c2g0fhc24f5  ·
SOURCE OR NO SOURCE?
"Therefore, the heart of the matter is saṃsāra and nirvāṇa’s seed, cause, gene, or element. An oral instruction of Abu’s (Patrul Rinpoche) says that this is the indispensable cause. This does not refer to an ordinary causal process involving something that is produced and something that produces. Rather, it is the indispensable cause in the sense that if there were no pristine cognition as the natural condition, there would be no source for the dyad of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. It is analogous to how without space, there would be no arising of the environment and its inhabitants; without the ocean, there would be no waves; and in the absence of valuable objects, needs and wants do not arise. Likewise, if the ultimate truth—the natural condition—were absent, there would be no source for any of the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Therefore, it is called the indispensable cause.[9]"
[André: the above makes me slightly nervous, because I very much prefer the idea of sourcelessness / groundlessness / non-arising presented at the sutra level. However the following footnote makes me feel a bit more relaxed again.]
"[9] A supporting passage from Longchenpa’s Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission reads: “Just as rays of sunlight are subsumed within the orb of the sun, all phenomena of the universe of appearances and possibilities are subsumed within their source, awakened mind. Suppose we then investigate this, examining the place from which samsara and nirvana (whose very essence is that of a dream) come, the place in which they abide, and the place to which they go. Since samsara and nirvana have never existed, they have never existed in any mode of coming, abiding, or going; or, conversely, since none of these three modes has ever existed, samsara and nirvana have never existed. And so, given that even what is termed ‘awakened mind as the supportive ground’ or ‘awakened mind as basic space’ has never existed as something with an identifiable essence, all things are none other than their true nature, which is like space; this is conventionally referred to as ‘things being subsumed within the true nature of phenomena.’ But it should be understood that subsuming and what is subsumed are without foundation or support” (Longchen Rabjam [2001], 123–124)."
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../khenchen-ngawang.../tendrel
Keegan Donlen

Hey André A. Pais, i just wanted to give huge thank you to you. Your “Beyond awareness” post on the atr website personally allowed me to recognize my subconscious habit of fabricating a unitary awareness in the foreground, and ended up dissolving any sense of awareness I had and I ended up realizing what the masters and you truly meant by appearances being self-luminous.
Your writing in that post is probably the greatest I’ve read on this topic due to how clear and direct it is. Words can’t express my appreciation of it enough.
• 3h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Keegan Donlen wow, thanks, mate! Happy to hear it made some sense to you and helped in any way. It was all mostly based on the writings of John Tan and especially (for me) Soh Wei Yu. Nine bows to them!
It was also based on some personal reflections that I guess I hadn't yet seen quite exactly expressed that way anywhere else (AFAIK); curiously though, later found some similar pointers (concerning the absence of pervasion) in a very traditional Buddhist text (Mipham's commentary to Adornment of the Middle Way).
Anyway, my writing got better in the meantime, I believe, and my insight more refined -- I have no realization, though, guess you've beat me on that one (kuddos to you! ). The point being: I have a photo album here on Facebook called Personal Musings where I collect some reflections (curiously Beyond Awareness isn't there, I think), just in case you want to check some other stuff out.
Also, have another photo album called TSK & Tarthang Tulku where I collect some quotes and excerpts from my favorite spiritual book, in case it might interest you.
Ok, end of announcements!
• 2h
• 
  
• Reply
Keegan Donlen

André A. Pais and nine bows to you! Indeed, I haven’t really seen anyone express that topic in the exact same way you did and emphasize the same points you have and it definitely vibed with me. Do you know if that text requires a lung as I’d love to re…
See more
• 2h
• 
  
• Reply




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Keegan Donlen it's a sutric text, so I guess no lung or special authorization is required, although a traditional Lama would still find it advisable.
Mipham's text is rather dense at times, but if it's your cup of tea, you'll have a blast with it.…
See more
• 2h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Blumenthal

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Mipham

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
For readers, this is the link to Andre's article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../beyond-awareness.html "Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness"

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness
Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness
• 1m
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Soh Wei Yu you've been getting into Dzogchen, how do you deal with the tendency in post-tantric vehicles to subsume appearances into some kind of ultimate source or ground? Does it strike you a bit like some reification is about to happen, or do you feel that it is very much in line with madhyamaka?
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
André A. Pais
In Dzogchen, there is no truly existing findable source, but an empty and luminous potentiality.
Malcolm’s translation of Longchenpa:
don de nges par rtogs 'dod na
dpe ni nam mkha' lta bur btag
don ni chos nyid skye ba med
rtags ni sems nyid 'gag pa med
If one wishes to ascertain the meaning of that,
the example is to examine "space-like."
The meaning is nonarising dharmatā.
The proof is the unceasing mind-essence.
In the commentary on this last line, the Chos dbying mdzod is cited:
"The proof is arising as anything at all from the potential (rtsal).
At the time of arising, there is no place of arising and no agent of arising.
If one examines the mere name, 'arising,' it is like space,
including everything in a great, impartial uniformity.
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
gad rgyangs wrote:
I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.
Malcolm wrote:
I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.
The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.
[Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.
Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):
Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.
In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.
gad rgyangs wrote:
Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.
Malcolm wrote:
Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.
gad rgyangs wrote:
There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).
Malcolm wrote:
It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.
gad rgyangs wrote:
When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
Malcolm wrote:
They never cease....
gad rgyangs wrote:
In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.
rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.
Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.
Sherlock wrote:
Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?
Malcolm wrote:
The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.
Malcolm wrote:
[Quoting gad rgyangs: in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.]
'The way that great transference body arises:
when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
but only the body as it was before...'
Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi
Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.
M
gad rgyangs wrote:
I'm talking about the perception of the relationship between nothing and something. The question of what jargon to use when talking around it is secondary, although not without historical interest.
Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
André A. Pais
Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen tantras.
For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.
For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.
-- Nāgārjuna.
...
Malcolm: This is completely inconsistent with the view of Dzogchen. The view of Dzogchen is that there is no basis or foundation at all. Also the doctrine of the two truths is absent in Dzogchen. Further, the view of Dzogchen is that everything, including buddhahood is completely equivalent to an illusion and therefore, uniform.
- https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=649959#p649959

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Malcolm says that there are no 2 truths model in Dzogchen, but then claims that everything is equivalent to an illusion. "Illusion" seems to bring back the model of the 2 truths, because "illusion" only makes sense in contrast with "real" -- and we are then back to the 2 truths.
• 31m
• 
  
• Reply




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
What makes you think Dzogchen is a affirming negation?
This is not the case. Dzogchen does not have a view to support or promulgate, and that is what affirming negations are for i.e. rejecting one thing in order to prove one's own perspective. By asserting that Dzogchen is asserting an affirming negation you are rendering Dzogchen inferior to Madhyamaka.
If Dzogchen is an affirming negation, than this statement from the Unwritten Tantra makes no sense:
“Apparent yet non-existent retinue, listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.
Since the wisdom appearances of people's own vidyā that are seen in personal experience are not established as entities of any kind, it is the appearance of the exhaustion of dharmatā."
Further, Vimalamitra states in The Lamp Summarizing Emptiness:
Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:
Everything arose from non-arising;�even arising itself never arose.
Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning. [180]
Empty things are empty by nature.
Since the emptiness of dharmatā is present without being contrived and without being transformed in the basis, yogins are also liberated by remaining naturally without contrivance and without transformations.
And:
"That dharmatā emptiness dwells in a fortress and is captured in a fortress: the fortress (that is like a circle of spears in the sky) encircles (without a beginning or an end) dharmatā, i.e., existence is dharmatā, non-existence is dharmatā, both are dharmatā and neither are dharmatā. As such, [dharmatā] is surrounded by the names “clear and unclear”, “empty and not-empty”, “existence and non-existence”, “permanence and annihilation”, and so on. That lack of finding evidence itself is dharmatā. Further, in reality nothing exists apart from dharmatā. That being the case, that emptiness (as a mere representation, baseless, and non-referential, being non-existent like a pretense) is understood with scripture, accepted by reasoning, proven by argument, and captured in a fortress. Be confident that dharmatā is the unmistaken true emptiness.
Therefore, to describe Dzogchen as an affirming negation does not make any sense at all.
N
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
• 43m
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Malcolm says that there are no 2 truths model in Dzogchen, but then claims that everything is equivalent to an illusion. "Illusion" seems to bring back the model of the 2 truths, because "illusion" only makes sense in contrast with "real" -- and we are then back to the 2 truths.

• 3d
• Like
• Reply

Katherine Willow

André A. Pais There is a difference between illusion as an affirming negation vs illusion as a non-affirming negation. What you are talking about is an affirming negation, i.e. claiming something is an illusion in order to say that something else is real. In Dzogchen, the claim of illusion is a non-affirming negation, negating the reality of an entity without saying something else is real. Here, the metaphor involves stating that the intrinstic reality of things, the "real" is the illusion, and their emptiness or nonexistence is what is real. Since emptiness is a non-affirming negation, this should be understood as turning the metaphor upside down by using it to show everything is unreal rather than showing that there is a real ground that an illusion hides. The so-called real ground is the lack of any real ground. For example, in "Finding Rest in Illusion", Longchenpa states:

"2. The primordial nature of the mind

Is a spacious, sky-like state

Where primal wisdom is like sun and moon and stars.

And yet when there occurs within this womb of space—

The wondrous sphere of emptiness—

A state of ignorance, conceptualization, dualistic clinging,

The hallucinations of the three worlds

And the six migrations manifest

In the manner of a magical illusion."

The auto-commentary states:

"The nature of the mind, the self-arisen primordial wisdom, is primordially pure and space-like. Within this state, which does not exist as anything at all, there move the five winds, of which the life-supporting wind is the root. This leads to the manifestation of [self-appearing rigpa] in the state of luminosity. When this is not recognized, it is misapprehended as an outer universe together with its inner contents, including one’s own body. All this appears variously as a mere magical illusion. As it is said in the tantra entitled the [Mind-Mirror of Vajrasattva], “In various ways, the beings of the three worlds stray from the ground, which in itself is nothing at all.”"

Thus, illusions appear from the basis, which itself is an illusion that produces nothing. Why? Because illusions do not exist, they are not produced. Because the basis (ground) does not exist, it does not produce existent things. But because there is co-dependent origination of adventitious ignorance together with the basis, the non-existent illusions appear as if they were existent. That is why it is called the ground that produces nothing in the Realms and Transformations of Sound Tantra. Thus, Longchenpa continues:

"But how do these hallucinatory appearances, which are like magical illusions, occur? The root text goes on to say,

"3. They appear spontaneously, through the power

Of interdependent causes and conditions—

Just as when a piece of wood or little stone

Is conjured through an incantation

And there appears a magical display,

A horse, an ox, a man or woman,

A mountain or a palace, and the rest.

"When a magical illusion is created of horses, oxen, and so on, there is a material cause, namely, a piece of wood or a pebble, and also a condition for the illusion, that is to say, the visual consciousness manipulated through the magic spell. On this basis, a hallucinatory experience of horses and oxen is produced. This manifests as the subjective experience of the mind, arising through the interdependent conjunction of causes and conditions. The hallucinatory appearances of saṃsāra are similar to this.

"4. Deluded mind and its habitual tendencies,

Phenomenal existence, the objects of the senses

And the three poisons that fixate on them—

All these occur because of ignorance.

Devoid of real existence, they all appear unceasingly.

They are like conjured apparitions.

From now on be convinced

That they are empty, false reflections.

"The underlying cause for all this is [rigpa] itself. The condition, on the other hand, is ignorance, owing to which, [rigpa] is distorted by the duality of the [subjective] apprehender and the apprehended (which thus becomes the object). It is thus that hallucinatory appearances, the universe and its animate contents, appear differently for different kinds of beings. Because of the three poisons, the various realms of saṃsāra, high and low, are experienced and seem real. But it should be understood that in fact they are nothing but false appearances—empty reflections—and that within [rigpa], the enlightened mind, there is no movement or change. The Samādhirāja-sūtra says,

"Just as in the midst of crowds,

The forms displayed by a magician—

Horses, oxen, chariots, and the like—

Appear in various forms yet lack reality,

Understand that all things are like this.

"And as the root text goes on to say, the illusions that appear while lacking all intrinsic being are like space."

Thus, the example of illusion is stated to explain the emptiness of all things. If it is still thought that rigpa is not empty while all appearances are empty because of being illusions, Longchenpa puts any such proliferations to rest:

"5. Sure it is that all things in phenomenal existence,

In saṃsāra and nirvāṇa,

Are in their nature equal and they all resemble space.

Understand that all are unborn,

Pure from the beginning.

All phenomena are by their nature devoid of existence. In themselves, they are like space. The Middle-Length Prajñāpāramitā says, “In themselves, phenomena are like space. One can find in them no center and no boundary.” And likewise we find in the Samādhirāja-sūtra,

All things disintegrate, O Son of the Victorious One,

All existents are primordially empty.

Extremists hold a lesser emptiness.

But there is no debate between the learned and the childish.

In this regard, some say that phenomena are empty by virtue of a preclusion of something that they do not possess 55 but that they are not empty of themselves. 56 This is like saying that the sun is empty of darkness but is not empty of rays of light. This is a lesser kind of emptiness, however, through which no freedom would ever be possible from the belief in the true existence of things. Examined according to the argument of “neither one nor many,” the sun is empty of inherent existence; being thus, it is also empty of rays of light. It is empty and yet it appears. This is the very principle and essence of Madhyamaka, the Middle Way."

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top Contributor

André A. Pais Dzogchen avoids this problem by putting the focus on one’s mode of cognition. When ignorance is present, sems (mind) is present. When knowledge is present, instead you have ye shes (pristine consciousness). Sems is of course what gives rise to apparent objects and the sense of dualism. Would highly recommend David Higgins’s paper “The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction Between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial knowing (ye shes)” which discusses the topic in more detail.

So both of these perspectives are accounted for and encapsulated in what Madhyamaka would call “ultimate truth”. After all, when delusion is present, we can’t say that that reality is any less true for us, in that given moment. It’s just that we’re deluded. Non-recognition is the issue. This is also how in Dzogchen one can claim that things are already pure from the very beginning.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Chris Jones thanks for your sharing. I'm usually very fond of Higgins' works. I've read most of Mahamudra and the Middle Way and of Buddha-nature Reconsidered and I thoroughly enjoyed those. Sheer precision and clarity. I've tried Philosophical Foundations but couldn't get very far, for whatever reason.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Chris Jones I've also read some shorter text of his on Longchenpa and the distinction between sems and yeshe. Yet, I'm not sure how that relates to my question above.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Katherine Willow thank you for your thorough and informative reply.

I think both affirming and non-affirming negations are problematic in the context of what I'm saying. Even the latter are reference points to be dropped. Of course, all means are valid as long as they remain skillful.

I wasn't saying that Dzogchen is postulating something as real. I just said that in the context of Malcolm proclaiming Dzogchen as not making use of the 2 truths model, saying that all things are illusory is still a reference to the 2 truths, even if somewhat abstractly (illusory is a concept that only makes sense in contradistinction with reality).

As they say in the 4 yogas of Mahamudra (and in Madhyamaka, of course), even a conviction in emptiness or one taste is to be removed, if the insight is to become more mature. Or as Dogen says, no trace of enlightenment remains.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top Contributor

André A. Pais

I was responding to this:

“Malcolm says that there are no 2 truths model in Dzogchen, but then claims that everything is equivalent to an illusion. "Illusion" seems to bring back the model of the 2 truths, because "illusion" only makes sense in contrast with "real" -- and we are then back to the 2 truths.”

This distinction is what allows Dzogchen to avoid having to take both relative and ultimate as “true” as per the two truths doctrine. Instead, as mentioned above, these are viewed from the lens of a single truth giving rise to different appearances (or lack thereof) depending on ignorance (or lack thereof). When ignorance is present, so are apparent objects. When ignorance is absent, objects are not present. According to Dzogchen, this is the only truth that needs to be stated. In this way, we avoid contradictions (things are both real conventionally and unreal ultimately). It’s just a slightly different presentation of the same view.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Katherine Willow

Realizing that appearances have no defining characteristics,

yogis are freed of even the most subtle beliefs

in ultimate and conventional reality

and are thus liberated from all metaphysical views.

This is conventionally termed “the purport of basic equality,”

“the view of the inseparability of the ultimate and conventional.”

A person in whose mind defining characteristics of the two truths

are intellectually posited as truly established

and are thus determined to be objects of knowledge

will never be able to relinquish dualistic mind.

For when that person has determined

that “the two truths are inseparable,”

with this deeply held belief, he also has not let go

of holding that the conventional exists as mere illusion.

That being so, even when he establishes the nondual nature of reality,

he harbors thoughts associated with dualism.

Investigating objects of knowledge by focusing the mind

on the distinction between the two truths

was taught as an antidote for those people

with excessive, obsessive clinging to real entities.

However, in the very nature of phenomena,

there are no dual characteristics.

Whosoever reverses grasping to characteristics

is free from this obsessive clinging.

When one experiences no craving or wishful thought

toward anything that appears,

this is called “the view of great equality.”

“Isn’t mere appearance the conventional reality?”

This is what was pointed out above with respect

to any person who believes appearance to be conventional

and believes, in the back of his mind,

that freedom from conceptual elaborations regarding that is the ultimate.

Still, for a mind that does not believe in the reality of the two truths,

to ask whether they are one or two is like asking

whether the son of a barren woman is blue or white.

~ Rongzompa

Once this kind of certainty has arisen,

Even clinging to mere illusion

Can be understood as conceptual imputation.

~ Mipham Rinpoche

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Chris Jones talking of lenses instead of truths seems to amount to the same. Even in sutra, the "truths" are epistemological more than ontological. And even in sutra, the relative truth is often taken as not true at all, but a mere worldly consensus between "childish" beings.

When you say objects are not present, you mean there aren't any appearances at all?

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top Contributor

André A. Pais Objects are not present in the sense that they’re illusory, not real. Just pristine consciousness appearing as objects.

Yes, as I understand it there’s no real difference between Nagarjuna’s view, or the two truths, and Dzogchen. It’s just presented slightly differently. The only problem I have is the way that relative truth is proposed as “kinda true, but not really” in Madhyamaka which can be rather confusing. The emphasis on deluded cognition giving rise to apparent objects is much clearer, at least to me, and fits in very nicely with dependent origination. Dzogchen also has a very elaborate explanation of the different modes and aspects of consciousness, how they relate to each other, how they arise, and so on which I personally find helpful.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Katherine Willow

André A. Pais

Edit: I will add that the difference between the two truths in madhyamika and the one truth of Dzogchen, is that in Madhyamika we distinguish between conventional objects to be analyzed and freedom from proliferation that is reached when analysis exhausts objects. In contrast, the single truth of Dzogchen, the perfect teaching, is one's own vidyā. The distinction is important in madhyamika to support the process of analysis. Since Dzogchen is not based on analysis it does not need to posit any truth except self-originated pristine consciousness.

it all comes down to whether one's view involves conceptual clinging or not. I completely agree with you and your later post; these deviations involve treating the view of Dzogchen as a philosophical view rather than one based on direct perception. As long as one continues in deluded vision, their negations will be affirming, whether that affirmation affirms existence, illusion, nonexistence, and so on. That is why it is important to bear in mind the difference between the method of madhyamika and Dzogchen. While the former is based on analysis, the latter is based on direct perception; provided one has correctly identified rigpa, for the moment they remain in that recognition they do not grasp at illusion or nonillusion, and so on.

• 1d
• Like
• Reply

• Edited