Sunday, February 23, 2014

The Vast Transparent Dimension

Jackson Peterson
Master Hui Hai's Teaching on Sudden Enlightenment
by Jackson Peterson on Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 00:06 ·

Question: That which occurs when we are confronted by all sorts of shapes and forms is called perception. Can we speak of perception taking place when nothing confronts us?
Answer: Yes

Question: When something confronts us, it follows that we perceive it, but how can there be perception when we are confronted by nothing all?

Answer: We are now talking of that perception which is independent of there being an object or not. How can that be? The nature of perception being eternal, we ago on perceiving whether objects are present or not. Thereby we come to understand that , whereas objects naturally appear and disappear, the nature of perception does neither of those things; and it is the same with all your other senses.

Question: When there are sounds, hearing occurs. When there are no sounds, does hearing persist or not?

Answer: It does.

Question: If that is so, who or what is the hearer?

Answer: It is your own nature which hears and it is the inner cognizer who knows.
"Though it follows the current of circumstances its nature is unchanging"

Question: How may we perceive our own Buddha Nature?

Answer: That which "perceives" is your own Buddha Nature, without it there could be no perception.
Like · · November 21, 2013 at 5:44pm

    Soh This understanding is like the I AM/Eternal Witness.
    November 21, 2013 at 7:55pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Not really., it's simply describing the sentient aspect of unestablished aware presence.
    November 21, 2013 at 8:39pm · Like
    Soh it is an immediate apprehension of Awareness that is later reified into a changeless knower. Precisely what I mean by I AM/Eternal Witness
    November 22, 2013 at 7:37am · Like · 1
    Soh aware presence is everchanging knowing-known without knower
    November 22, 2013 at 7:38am · Like · 1
    Dhruval Patel Sometimes the language is ambiguous, but this is clearly a mistaken view...

    "Question: If that is so, who or what is the hearer?
    Answer: It is your own nature which hears and it is the inner cognizer who knows.
    "Though it follows the current of circumstances its nature is unchanging"

    Why separately mention an "inner cognizer" and ones true nature ?
    November 22, 2013 at 9:32am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Because our nature is pure Consciousness. It can't be "reified" into a knower. "Knower" is just a concept appearing in that which cannot be reified. Rigpa can't be reified. How does one reify empty space? It's not possible to reify aware knowing likewise.
    November 22, 2013 at 9:26pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Soh, nothing has ever been reified. Reification is an illusion. Illusions can't condition the "unborn". How does one reify empty space?
    November 22, 2013 at 9:28pm · Like · 1
    Soh That is precisely what reification is all abt...not there but reified as "there"
    November 23, 2013 at 5:22am · Edited · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson What "there"?
    November 23, 2013 at 5:23am · Like
    Soh Seeing a true self as truly there or seeing an unborn empty space as changelessly there and existing.
    November 23, 2013 at 5:48am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson That's all imputation Soh, not direct "imputation free" Seeing. Those words describe a non- imputed, non-conceptual gnostic moment. That's the nature of reality when seen nakedly free of all conceptual constructions and free of a self-mind that imputes.
    November 23, 2013 at 7:49am · Like · 1
    Soh That nonconceptual gnostic moment will later be reified in terms of a changeless subject due to persistent strength of karmic conditioning
    November 23, 2013 at 7:55am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Yes, that usually happens doesn't it? Hence two-fold emptiness needs to be a thorough penetration of deep insight. But there should be no notion of a "changeless subject" in any case. There is no subject that "doesn't change".,,
    November 23, 2013 at 8:00am · Like · 1
    Soh But didnt you say that there is an aware presence that is what you are and doesnt change?
    November 23, 2013 at 8:04am · Like · 4
    Jackson Peterson The "aware presence" that we are is impersonal non-subjectivity Soh, as Thrangu says, we are "pure awareness". Recognizing this is rigpa. That is the 8th step in your paradigm that only includes 7 steps or levels.
    November 23, 2013 at 7:23pm · Like
    Soh By conceiving aware presence as "what you are", that is precisely reifing awareness into a subject. By conceiving aware presence as changeless, that is precisely what is meant by reifying awareness into a changeless subject.
    November 23, 2013 at 7:53pm · Like · 3
    Soh I AMness is stage 1, one mind is stage 4
    November 23, 2013 at 7:54pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Soh, you have it backwards. The insight is not conceived, as it is the absence of a conceiving mind. That conceiving consciousness is inactive in rigpa. The description comes later as attempts are made at describing the indescribable ... Do you think all Thrangu, Tulku Urgyen's , Longchenpa's descriptions of "changeless", "pure awareness" etc. are "errors" in their views?
    November 23, 2013 at 8:02pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson There is no "I am". That is an imputation. There is no "one", that too is an imputation.
    November 23, 2013 at 8:04pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Thrangu Rinpoche commenting on Lama Ganshar;

    "This is why we just rest right in the nature of mind as it is. The dharma nature is unchanging. When the great meditators of the past meditated on it, they saw that we do not need to alter it in any way. We just need to come to thoroughly know the dharma nature as it is. When we see that, this is the mind that we call clear and expansive, vivid and awake."
    November 23, 2013 at 8:29pm · Like
    Soh Btw y r u seeing stages?
    November 23, 2013 at 9:33pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson No stages, all "stages" are purely imputed diversity, conceptual constructions. Stages are like a stairway made of clouds floating in the empty sky. The one walking upward on the stairway is also a cloud formation. The stairs and the one walking ever higher are empty conceptual constructions floating in ever present Dharmakaya rigpa. Every step along the way is as empty as the previous. All empty!
    November 23, 2013 at 9:39pm · Like
    Soh All empty? What abt DharmaKaya?
    November 23, 2013 at 10:06pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Dharmakaya is empty, reification is empty , imputation is empty, self is empty, "things" are empty, all is "empty, luminously formative and self-knowing vividness".
    November 23, 2013 at 11:11pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Sogyal Rinpoche:

    "The purpose of meditation is to awaken in us the sky-like nature of mind and to introduce us to that which we really are, our unchanging pure awareness which underlies the whole of life and death."
    November 23, 2013 at 11:34pm · Like
    Soh Why cling so deeply on pure awareness?
    November 24, 2013 at 12:12am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Soh, when you are "seeing just the seeing" and "hearing just the heard", is your awareness penetrating through and beyond the heard and seen into infinite space revealing the empty and transparent nature of the "seen" and the "heard"?
    November 24, 2013 at 12:31am · Like
    Soh Is this necessary unless one is seeing "something" extra, isn't thought already transparent and empty? Isn't sound already transparent and empty? Aren't dancing sensations already always transparent and empty?
    November 24, 2013 at 12:48am · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Yes ! But are they dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness?
    November 24, 2013 at 1:36am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński This thread make me sad abt how people are obsessed with concepts.
    November 24, 2013 at 4:32am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Concepts are also the Dharmakaya...
    November 24, 2013 at 8:10am · Like
    Soh No sensations are not dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness. The vast transparent dimension of pure conscious sensations are dancing about.
    November 24, 2013 at 10:07am · Like · 11
    Din Robinson there is no subject

    just IS
    November 25, 2013 at 7:53am · Unlike · 1
    Din Robinson you know, a little humility can go a long way,

    no one really knows what's going on,

    and that, to me, is the closest to stillness or emptiness, there IS

    when nothing is being claimed (to be true)
    November 25, 2013 at 12:07pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Nicely expressed Soh!
    November 25, 2013 at 8:26pm · Like

Awareness in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Advaita

David Boulter<
Both Dzogchen and Mahamudra inquire into the nature of awareness. Does anyone know whether the concept of awareness as spoken of by these traditions is meant in the same was as is used in Advaita Vedanta?
Like · · November 14, 2013 at 5:00am near Normanton, United Kingdom

    Justin Struble likes this.
    John Ahn http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html
    November 14, 2013 at 5:20am · Like · 3
    Soh TLDR/In short: Advaita apprehends directly unfabricated Awareness/luminous clarity, then reifies it into a truly existing Self. Dzogchen and Mahamudra also leads to direct apprehension of unfabricated Awareness/luminous clarity, then proceeds to realize its empty nature.

    In long (something I wrote recently):

    http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=14626...

    I just read one of Peter Brown's article, which is quite good in some ways and points to the immediate radiance of all senses without subject-object division and objectification and also points to the spell of karmic traces or what he calls the 'mechanism of imagination, interpretation' (what he calls - http://www.theopendoorway.org/yoga.html ) - but it is still under the framework of what I call "substantial nondualism", which is not the same as having deconstructed Subject/Self via insight (anatta) but rather seen as an undivided reality (an inherently existing Self that is nonetheless indivisible, inseparable, from all its manifestation). This substantializing of Clarity is another form of the functioning of karmic traces or "mechanism of imagination, interpretation" but it is very difficult to "see" - it appears as one's reality, the karmic traces are completely manifest as one's entire experience like a dream that seems very real so one is unable to tell, it is a blinding and powerful magical spell (the spell that conceives of inherently existing self and phenomena).

    There comes a time when by self-inquiry, or other methods, that one is led to a direct immediate apprehension of the very Presence of one's Consciousness, the very realness of Existence, of luminosity.... where Consciousness/Awareness/Unfabricated Clarity in its glory and bliss draws complete attention onto itself without any extra thoughts and there is direct realization and complete certainty of one's luminous essence. There is direct realization of the Luminous Essence as the very Pure Presence or Consciousness itself that is more real, more certain and undeniable than anything. One touches the very core of consciousness itself. This is actually a correct realization and concerns the luminous clarity aspect of our Buddha-nature. The problem is not with the direct apprehension of the Luminous essence itself - the problem is that after that moment, due to ignorance and failure to realize the empty nature of luminous clarity, it is immediately being reified and wrongly understood, so it turns into a transcendental, metaphysical Self (with the capital 'S' in contrast to the egoic small letter 's' small self) behind everything. This metaphysical Self is seen as the Ground of Being - the substratum or container from which all phenomena arise and subside to, leaving the noumenon itself unaffected and unchanged, like the depths of the ocean. It is seen as an ultimate Source from which all objects owe its existence to - like the Sun and the reflected planets/objects in space.

    When there is complete certainty of Pure Knowing-Presence/Beingness, which is at first the direct realization of the luminous presence of the formless aspect of mind, one later investigates all the other sense fields, penetrate any illusions of a subject-object division until one sees everything as the manifestation of an undivided field of awareness without any objects (apart from being the non-objective expressions of field of consciousness itself, i.e. All is Self).

    Luminous essence is now no longer seen dualistically as in "I am I/Consciousness is Consciousness but everything/phenomena is external to consciousness/Consciousness is the eternal witness of phenomena". Rather than conceiving of Consciousness as a dualistic witness behind everything, consciousness is then seen as the source and substance from which everything manifests in and AS that consciousness itself, and consciousness is both the ocean (noumenon) and its waves (phenomena). Even though the view of subject-object duality may be seen through (but not really - it is an incomplete dissolving of subject-object view) in an insight into non-duality and the radiant clarity experienced in all senses, the view of inherency continues so one still conceives of Consciousness as truly and inherently existing as a metaphysical absolute or source and substance which is expressing indivisibly as every sight/sound/etc without subject-object division (this is where Peter Brown is at). This causes a continual subtle referencing back to a Self by subsuming all experience to be Self (as expressions of Self). I call this phase "one mind". This is the furthest that Advaita (both neo and traditional) has went to. Despite experiencing and realizing undivided clarity, there is strong attachment to a metaphysical, changeless, independent, inherently existing Absolute.

    Then hopefully with direct contemplation into no-self (with help of pointers and teachings, such as bahiya sutta), there can be a breakthrough into the seal-insight of anatta: always already, in hearing just sound hearing (hearing is the sound!) never a hearer, so complete, so gapless, the entirety of your reality (except there is no 'you') is fully just sound... in seeing only always just scenery, never a you seeing or seer... your entire reality is only and completely this whole universe (experiential universe, a.k.a. the seamless total exertion of seeing-hearing-smelling-tasting-touching-thinking as one whole marvelous limitless foreground activity giving its best to make this entirety) seeing itself, tasting itself, touching itself. It's like the behind (self/Self) is totally lost (it never existed! but certainly was a very strong delusion until seen through) and what's left is only the limitless and brilliant in front (whatever's appearing) which is your entire reality but there is no more in front or behind or up or down because there is no more a reference of a center or a boundary. Even this is not the end and there can be further deconstruction, and penetration, into the emptiness and non-arising of phenomena.

    After realization of no-self (anatman), one is freed from that "dual and inherent spell", there is no denial of luminous clarity and instantly one is in a non-dual state in six entries and exits, where scenery, sound, thought, scent is radiant (vivid, clear, bright, aware, alive) as itself without ground and references. There is no skewing to the luminosity of formless mind nor is non-dual clarity reified into a "All-Self" like in One Mind. One understands, as Ted Biringer said, "...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind."

    xabir

    Posts: 158
    Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:14 pm
    Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchenby lama tsewang » Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:17 am hmm , another person... - Dh
    www.dharmawheel.net
    November 14, 2013 at 9:47am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
    Kyle Dixon Jackson will say yes. But no, and often when you see 'awareness' in Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā it's actually a translation of rig pa [skt. vidyā] which isn't 'awareness' in the way we usually think of the term. Some translate rigpa as knowledge, some as discernment, some leave it untranslated.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:21am · Unlike · 2
    Kyle Dixon Nosta wrote:
    After all what exactly is rigpa? Whats the difference between rigpa and nirvana?

    Malcolm wrote:
    Rigpa is just your knowledge of your primordial state.

    --------

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Tashi delek,

    Rigpa could also be awareness about the / "our" Natural State?

    Best wishes
    KY

    Malcolm wrote:
    There can be awareness without knowledge but there cannot be rigpa without knowledge. So no, rig pa is knowledge of our state, whatever adjective you wish to use to describe it.

    --------

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Tashi delek,

    - First how is knowledge seen of a State which is without recognizing or is more experienced in the sense of " self-iluminating "?
    - So i guess that "knowledge" has the meaning of be aware of that State by study or by realisation of the Natural State which is without "knowledge" of that State.
    So Rigpa can/ has also here above mentioned, the meaning of the knowledge which one must have to be able to regognize a certain degree in the Dzogchen Yogas / "meditations".

    Further is English sometimes not good enough to make some uusefull Dzogchen translations.

    KY

    Malcolm wrote:
    Knowledge comes from recognition. Without recognition, no knowledge.

    English is actually a very good language for Dzogchen translations -- it is very precise.

    N

    --------

    muni wrote:
    Awareness with an added word. Like Selfsprung Awareness, Pristine Awareness, 'inner Pure Awareness and Knowledge', and other to express completedness.

    Malcolm wrote:
    I know what Sogyal says, and translating rig pa as "awareness" is passe.

    Further, just as a simple point of Tibetan grammar, rang gi rig pa means "one's own rigpa", not self-awareness.

    rang byung rigpa means "knowledge that comes from oneself i.e. it is based on one's own direct experience.

    Ye shes is normally translated as wisdom or primordial wisdom, but some people these days, following John Pettite and Richad Baron are liking primordial awareness for this.

    I back translate rigpa in Sanskrit generally, as vidyā unless it is being used as a verb "to know". Adriano Clemente has stopped translating it altogether, which I approve of. However, since we use terms like dharmakāya, etc., for Buddhist Dzogchen texts at any rate, vidyā is another word that is preferable.

    On the other hand, we are still very much in the experimental stage and every translator and and so on has their own ideas based on what they understand about the teachings.

    --------

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Tashi delek,

    Yes the term Rigpa, is a very difficult word to translate, sure when it is related to awareness.
    Also is it clear that Rigpa could also be inteligence, that was also one of my earlier suggestion.

    Malcolm wrote:
    In my opinion, translating rigpa as "awareness" is simply wrong. Intelligence is also not good, again IMO.

    In this case, knowledge is best. Why? Because rigpa is opposite to ma rig pa. Knowledge is the opposite of ignorance.

    N

    --------

    muni wrote:
    Yes, the word what can help the most clear to express its' meaning, is what one can apply. No idea make wholes in "naked awareness", a word of Lama Surya Das.

    Malcolm wrote:
    IMO opinion the word "vidyā" does not mean "awareness", as I have explained. The term "shes pa" can mean awareness depending on context. It can also mean "to recognize" depending on whether it is being used as a noun or a verb.

    Having translated and read thousands of pages of Dzogchen texts, I am very dissatisfied with the use of awareness for rigpa. It should be deprecated, like HTML 1.0.

    --------

    tamdrin wrote:
    ...but I never saw you say anything about Namkhai Norbu's translation of rigpa as "presence" which is really a lackluster tranlation, many will agree.

    Malcolm wrote:
    He does not translate rigpa as presence, as I have explained before. The word he is translating for presence is dran pa, mindfulness.

    The word he uses for rig pa is knowledge.

    Why do I know this? Because I frequently follow him with the Tibetan text he is teaching in hand.

    But I am not saying that knowledge is the best translation for rig pa in general because he is using it. It is because I have been reading Dzogchen texts for 20 years and finally concluded on my own that "knowledge" was best.

    --------

    tamdrin wrote:
    While many of his other students who post around here think that he does translate rigpa as presence. Again awareness can be of relative objects (i.e. being aware of some object).. knowledge can also be of relative objects, having knowledge of such and such field of knowledge.

    Malcolm wrote:
    In this case, he is using the term rig pa to describe one's knowledge of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy/compassion. When you have that knowledge (vidyā/rig pa) you no longer wander in samsara. When you do not have that knowledge (avidyā,ma rig pa) then you wander in samsara endlessly.

    As far as what other people may say who do not know Tibetan, and do not follow his teachings with text in hand, all I can say is that they are mistaken.

    Sometimes Rinpoche will translate "shes pa skad gcig ma" as "instant presence", because this uncontrived momentary awareness is the basis of tregchö etc. Then in this case one uses mindfulness as a support for uncontrived momentary awareness do that you do not wander in distraction. In this respect, there is basically difference between mahāmudra meditation, dzogchen and the Sakya "khordey yerme" i.e. the view of inseparability of samsara and nirvana -- they all are talking about the same thing in this respect tha mal gyi shes pa so called "ordinary mind" or "basis awareness".

    But rigpa is something else. Rigpa is the knowledge of your state. When you have recognized uncontrived momentary awareness, the knowledge that ensues from recognition is rigpa. When you have recognized the meaning of sound, lights and rays, the knowledge that ensues from recognition is rigpa. Why, because you are no longer in a state of ignorance. The opposite of ignorance is knowledge. The opposite of ma rig pa is rig pa, the opposite of avidyā is vidyā.

    Also rig pa can mean knowledge. As a verb, it means "to know" when it is used as a verb in Tibetan, never "to be aware". Then there is the rig gnas lnga i.e. the five sciences, the pañcavidyāsthana.

    The use of the term vidyā as the opposite of avidyā is very deliberate in Dzogchen texts and relates to the beginning of the cycle of dependent origination. When Samantabhadra knew his own state, the chain of dependent origination, which begins with ignorance, never started for him.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:36am · Unlike · 4
    Soh I believe Jax no longer holds the view that Advaita is the same as Dzogchen recently
    November 14, 2013 at 11:39am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Ah well that's good.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:40am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Some more:

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Rigpa in the sense of intelligence, could be equal to knowledge and this is the oposite to no intelligence,

    Malcolm wrote:
    The opposite of intelligence is absence of intelligence or in this sense, the insentient, the inert.

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    But i cannot help it that many Geshelas, Khenpos, Lopons, Rinpoches etc. maintain the meaning of Awareness when in the Natural State as a word to express Rigpa

    Malcolm wrote:
    Sure, they do. They are not native English speakers. Not their fault. They do the best they can. The reason every one in the bon po world uses awareness is mainly due to John Reynolds.

    But now more and more people are moving away from that translation, in the Buddhist world at any rate.

    The bon world is much smaller, and therefore, it will more resistant to change. Also fewer western translators.

    ------

    muni wrote:
    Rigpa on it; knowledge for schoolstudents. There are many Rigpa's and combinations.
    In 'naked awareness' I see clear as emptiness and awareness. Pure awareness as Rigpa here.
    Maybe self-"arising" (already is) gnosis= empty awareness.

    Ma Rigpa = state sentient being. (not knowing)
    I think the linguistic meaning is less important. Also nature is not in text revealing.

    Ah.

    Malcolm wrote:
    HI Muni:

    One of the problems you will face if you insist on translating rigpa as a awareness, is that you will be able to differentiate Dzogchen, etc. from the hindus who are always waffling on about "pure awareness". In reality, "awareness" is a word in english which requires an object.

    "Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event."

    I know you are not a native English speaker, and so you may not be tuned into usage of English terms. Awareness is always an awareness of something. The basis is not a something. If you are aware of the basis as a something, then you immediately fall into samsara. This is the problem with using the term awareness for rig pa.

    Knowledge in the other hand is more ambiguous word in English which actually involves real philosophical issues hence the discipline of epistemology i.e. the study of knowledge qua knowledge.

    Rig pa in every sense of the word as it is used in opposition to ma rig pa has to do with knowing as opposed to ignorance. Some have described as the intersection between belief and truth, or "a justified true belief."

    In this case, rig pa is justified, because it is based on a personal experience, true, because that experience can be verified by anyone, and a belief because in this case personal experience has lead us to a state personal verification of something that before hand be merely believed.

    Anyway, people are free to believe what they wish, justified or not. It is my belief, one I think justified and true, that the English word awareness is not an adequate translation of rig pa almost every case.

    The problem is that you and mudra do not fully understand what term "awareness" really means in English. So therefore, you are stuck on an obsolete translation.

    So, there is no point in further discussion.

    As long as you understand what rig pa means for yourself, you can call rig pa "george".
    November 14, 2013 at 11:47am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Soh, I never saw the views as the same, because Advaita uses a term "Self". That "Self" is ok if it points to the spiritual nature of all experience as Self , without the sense of a background entity. Vairocana and Dzogchen Tantras refer to "Great Self" (Mahatman), Dagnyid Chenpo. But that "Self" is the result of insight into two-fold emptiness that finally reveals the empty and unestablished rigpa or wisdom consciousness as yeshe. It is a Buddha which is essence, nature-clarity and reflexive resonating concern. Leaving this Buddha unestablished and empty is the unique perspective of Dzogchen, Zen and Mahamudra without bias toward eternalism nor to nihilism.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:19pm · Like
    Kyle Dixon This just came up yesterday:

    Malcolm wrote:
    There is a long section discussing lhun grub in various ways in the fourth chapter of the klong drug commentary.

    "Natural" [lhun] is the state [ngang] because it is uncontrived; it is the primal nature [rang bzhin] because that never stirs; it is the absolute identity [bdag nyid chen po] because of abiding in that. "Perfected" is the the result since there is not need for accomplishment [bsgrub]; since that is not fabricated, it is the basis; and because there is no ground of change from that, it is the path."

    This is the section that caused me to change my mind.

    BTW, these three terms, state, primal nature and absolute identity are very important concepts in interpreting the bodhicitta texts.

    udawa wrote:
    Quote:
    absolute identity [bdag nyid chen po]

    Malcolm, could you say a bit more about 'absolute identity?' Presumably a more literal translation would be something like 'great self'?

    D

    Malcolm wrote:
    The reason I use the term "identity" rather than "self" is to avoid confusion with nonbuddhist tenets. ChNN glosses this as "total state".
    November 15, 2013 at 12:04am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Mutsuk Marro wrote:
    The view of "great self' is discussed at length in the bSam-gtan mig-sgron, and on at least one occasion, it is glossed as "rig pa". A interlineary note also says that, among the nine views of the Basis, this "great self" is the view maintained by Vairocana.

    According to Nubchen, it seems that the expression is also used in a similar manner in Mahayoga tantras.

    Malcolm wrote:
    There is nothing controversial about this. Nubchen comments:

    "Grasping to appearances as self and other is purified by nature (ngang gyis dag pa); the great I without an I (nga med pa'i nga chen) is the great self (bdag nyid chen po)"

    dzogchungpa wrote:
    From "Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi":
    Quote:
    D.: If ‘I’ also be an illusion, who then casts off the illusion?
    M.: The ‘I’ casts off the illusion of ‘I’ and yet remains as ‘I’. Such
    is the paradox of Self-Realisation. The realised do not see any
    contradiction in it.

    Malcolm wrote:
    It is not the same. Maharshi's comments make sense in the context of Samkhya/Yoga where there is a total cessation of citta vrttis, and yet Purusha remains. People deify Maharshi, but since they do not have a basic grasp of the Samkhya Yoga tradition, they really do not understand the context of his statements such as the above.

    Dzogchen teachings are not stating that there is an existing atman which is free from cittavrttis.

    Generally, we must not take such terminologies as implying something they are not. Otherwise, the Dzogchen tantras and upadeshas detailed refutations of the views of self found outside Buddhadharma will be rendered senseless.
    November 15, 2013 at 12:16am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Malcolm wrote:
    What I am saying is that people are incapable of perceiving the difference in meaning between the two terminologies because they are unfamiliar with the basic premises of which underlie Ramana Maharshi's statements in general. I am sure they are not the same because I have received teachings in Dzogchen and I have received teachings in Yoga sutras, etc. And the premises underlying Ramana Maharshi's practice and realization and the premises underlying Dzogchen practice and realization are not the same.

    For example, these extracts are taken from the section of Nub's review of different views held by different Dzogchen masters enunciated. bDag nyid chen po is Vairocana's favored way of expressing Dzogchen view. Vimalamitra's was called gza' gtad dang bral ba, "freedom from reference points", Garab Dorje's view, so he says, was lhun grub., and so on.

    So the "great self" approach is one facet; the lhun sgrub view is another facet, etc. But one cannot get stuck on these views because it is very clearly explained in such tantras as sgra thal 'gyur and others that there are seven positions about the basis [gzhi] and only one of them (i.e. the basis is ka dag) is in the final analysis utterly faultless.

    Please do not lose sight of the fact that these views are partial attempts to describe the view of Dzogchen. So when we see things like the above citation we mustn't rush off and start proclaiming to everyone that Dzogchen teaching teaches the same things as Ramana Maharshi. We have to understand that Ramana is coming from the Samkhya/Yoga tradition. He says nothing that cannot be found in the Yoga sutras as interpreted by Shankaracarya.

    I am also pointing out that there is a long standing commentarial tradition based on the Dzogchen tantras own statement that will not allow one to interpret such terms as bdag nyid chen po as being in any way similar in intent to the sentiments of RM that you cite above.
    November 15, 2013 at 12:16am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon dzogchungpa wrote:
    So, are you saying that purusha is 'I' according to Ramana and the yoga tradition, and that the difference between this and the bdag nyid chen po discussed earlier is that the latter is not considered to be existent in the same way as the former?

    Malcolm wrote:
    Yes, I am saying that purusha is the self, according to Ramana and Advaita. The main difference between Advaita and Yoga is Advaita asserts there is only one self or purusha, but SamkhyaYoga asserts there are many -- otherwise, the path taught in Yoga and the path taught in Advaita are the same. When you look at Ramanas remarks about pratyakasha for example, these remarks are completely consistent with the way pratyaksha is treated in the Yoga sutras.

    You also have to understand that purusha excludes all phenomena from itself. It is pure consciousness, but prakriti is not part of purusha. Advaita too keeps the prakriti purusha duality in terms of relative truth, but rather than asserting that prakriti is real, it asserts that prakriti is actually unreal (maya). However, cit, is real, is brahman. Here, they understand that purusha actually means brahman.

    bdag nyid chen po in Dzogchen pretty clearly refers to the basis, not any kind of personal identity, transcendent or otherwise, which is why ChNN translate it as "the totality of one's state".
    November 15, 2013 at 12:17am · Like · 1

Mindfulness, Primacy of Brain?

David BoulterI would appreciate any advice you guys have on the practice of mindfulness. Specifically, where is the most effective place to focus the attention: in the body or out into the environment?
Like · · December 7, 2013 at 10:39pm near Normanton, United Kingdom

    Soh I think starting with the breathe is one of the easiest ways. That can be your main focus for sitting meditation first. Then extend mindfulness to everything experienced at every moment...
    December 7, 2013 at 10:51pm · Edited · Like · 1
    David Boulter My meditation practice is reasonably well established. My question was more about mindfulness in daily life.
    December 7, 2013 at 10:54pm · Like
    David Boulter But do I gather from your response, Soh that mindfulness is most effective if it encompasses bodily sensation AND everything else outside the body that one becomes aware of.
    December 7, 2013 at 10:58pm · Like
    Soh Yes all and everything. When eating fully experience the taste with mindful alertness... when walking being mindful of each step and the environment mindfully... each moment has a unique experience that can be mindful of.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:02pm · Like · 1
    David Boulter Great. Thank you.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:10pm · Like
    Faraz Ahmed I think it is also important to keep seeing defilements as they arise. ajahn brahm says that we should be focused on the space between observer and observed,because that is where the 5 hindrances come up.
    so if I notice pain, I also notice the aversion I have to the pain and put peace and stillness there.
    and I should keep doing this throughout the day. so my focus should be on seeing the hindrances/defilements arise and to put peace there instead. Ofcourse, it's difficult to do but I am trying to do this as much as i can.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:40pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson David Boulter, there is "nothing outside the body". All perceptions occur within your brain and skull. No one has ever experienced anything "out there". That means being mindful to the occurrences of the five senses and arising of thoughts. First stage: mentally note: "seeing red", "feeing pressure In my feet", "warmth on my fingers", "sound of a car", "thought arising".. Etc. Then more general: "seeing", "hearing", "feeling/pressure", "tasting", "smelling", "thinking", "walking", "talking", "eating", "washing" etc. then just being present to experience consciously without mental notation.. Then no mindfulness affected at all..,
    December 7, 2013 at 11:46pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson David Boulter, I feel mindfulness of mental phenomena as they arise, can reveal how the mind goes about weaving its fictitious stories that are the source of all suffering.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:56pm · Like · 1
    John Ahn Ok, Jackson wrote--&gt;"there is "nothing outside the body". All perceptions occur within your brain and skull. No one has ever experienced anything "out there." Jackson can't read my posts because he has blocked me, so if someone can copy and paste this it'd be good, but anyway it's not necessarily written towards him.
    December 8, 2013 at 1:40am · Like · 1
    John Ahn When we have this idea, there is "nothing outside the body" and that all perceptions "happen in the body"/i.e. skull and brain, actually it is a very contradictory statement. According to this line of reasoning, since your body is also a part of your perceptions, there is no grounds for you to establish that in fact there is a skull and brain/body in which these perceptions occur. So this is a very dangerous line of inquiry that can lead to solipsism.
    December 8, 2013 at 1:44am · Edited · Like · 1
    John Ahn As my friend once put it: "Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption. One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?"
    December 8, 2013 at 1:52am · Like · 1
    David Boulter John Ahn write this and asked for it to be copied.

    Ok, Jackson wrote--&gt;"there is "nothing outside the body". All perceptions occur within your brain and skull. No one has ever experienced anything "out there." Jackson can't read my posts because he has blocked me, so if someone can copy and paste this it'd be good, but anyway it's not necessarily written towards him.

    When we have this idea, there is "nothing outside the body" and that all perceptions "happen in the body"/i.e. skull and brain, actually it is a very contradictory statement. According to this line of reasoning, since your body is also a part of your perceptions, there is no grounds for you to establish that in fact there is a skull and brain/body in which these perceptions occur. So this is a very dangerous line of inquiry that can lead to solipsism.

    As my friend once put it: "Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption. One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?"
    December 8, 2013 at 1:54am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson My response to John and his friend is that neuro-science has proven that our "experience" only occurs in the mind-brain. Nothing "outside the body" doesn't mean there is not a vast universe "out there", but we only experience what's "out there", in our skull. Perceptions come in through the body's senses, and then those signals are processed and the brain then creates the 3D movie that plays in our head. This is not new neuro-scinece. The rest of the comments are just "magical thinking"...
    December 8, 2013 at 2:00am · Like
    David Boulter I'll do this one more time for the sake of communication...

    Jackson wrote: My response to John and his friend is that neuro-science has proven that our "experience" only occurs in the mind-brain. Nothing "outside the body" doesn't mean there is not a vast universe "out there", but we only experience what's "out there", in our skull. Perceptions come in through the body's senses, and then those signals are processed and the brain then creates the 3D movie that plays in our head. This is not new neuro-scinece. The rest of the comments are just "magical thinking"...
    December 8, 2013 at 2:07am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Wrote this on another forum from before:

    If experience, or visual consciousness, is a representation created in the brain, meaning that seeing, hearing, tactile sensation etc., are located in the brain; how do you get around the fact that the brain itself is likewise only apprehended via those very same faculties?

    The implications that there is an external universe which is apprehended via the senses and translated by a brain are quite damning. If that is the case, since experience would never transcend its translation, there is no way to access or prove the existence of such an external universe, and so the logic would negate the initial premise. The other issue would be that the very 'brain' experience is apprehended by, would likewise only be accessible and apprehensible from within the very experience it (the brain), itself apprehends. If experience goes on inside the brain, and the brain goes on inside experience; establishing an ontological hierarchy which maintains that experience occurs in a brain (or is generated by a brain) is impossible. Therefore no brain which could possibly contain visual (or any other type of) consciousness has ever been encountered.

    This is akin to saying 'the chicken is an interpretation which only ever occurs inside the egg' ...but the egg was laid by a chicken, which itself hatched from an egg... which was laid by a chicken.

    Most of the modern world believes that their conscious experience is generated by their brain, which interprets an external and pre-existing universe that is separate from it. This is not the view held by Dzogchen, and even tīrthika non-dual traditions do not hold the brain to be fundamental to experience.

    The notion that the brain is first and foremost is a byproduct of a long running paradigm, predicated on a materialist and physicalist interpretation of the universe. Science will tell you outright that the brain runs the show and generates consciousness, yet they have no idea how it performs such a feat... it is nothing more than a theory.

    I think anyone would be forced to agree that from the first person perspective, our own brains are surely not obvious.

    The implications of that, is that our personal brain based experience is an inference or logical deduction, a conclusion we arrive at. It's a sound conclusion and there's certainly evidence for it, but it's also open to scrutiny.

    The same principle from above still applies as well; if we only have access to the 'objective' brains (belonging to others) that we base our conclusion (about our own brain) on, (and this occurs) from within the confines of our own alleged brain; we're still only accessing the brain from within experience. That isn't to say one account is ontologically superior to the other, but it causes some inquiry, specifically, where and how do we draw the line? And once we draw that line, isn't it obvious that we're creating that line?

    Things start to look rather arbitrary, and we find that instead of our previous conviction; that we're indeed referring to a pre-existing structure - we instead seem to be inferring that structure.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:07am · Like · 1
    John Ahn Hey David, I can see Jackson's posts. He just can't see mine. But thanks!
    December 8, 2013 at 2:08am · Like · 1
    David Boulter Which is how you saw what he wrote earlier. D'oh!
    December 8, 2013 at 2:10am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Jax's insistence of importing neuro-science into the dharma simply clouds and obfuscates the types of insights the dharma is capable of revealing. It's rather extraneous and unnecessary in my opinion.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:12am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Same with me, I can see Jax's posts but he can't see mine. John and I are in the blocked 4 life crew.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:13am · Like
    John Ahn Hi Jackson, I'm glad I've been unblocked. Thank you! I think you are overestimating the extent to which neuroscience understands experience. For instance currently there is no understanding of how memory works via the brain. And only recently they have begun to understand the functions of sleep, and it is very elementary that we now understand sleeping give the brain the time to recover from toxins. Also traditional view of neuroscience which have split functions via left and right hemispheres are being thrown out as we speak. No neuoroscientist with peer reviewed research as come up with any conclusions about conscious experience or how awareness is generated either. So when there are so many developments happening in brain research, it's too early to place all of one's faith in a few theories in the field, of which the model you wrote about is just one model.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:16am · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Huh?
    December 8, 2013 at 2:15am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson David Boulter you had said "everything else outside the body that one becomes aware of". My point is that the "aware of" occurs "in the body and brain". Just playing off of your comment...
    December 8, 2013 at 2:24am · Like
    John Ahn No spiritual tradition, perhaps only minor sects like Actual Freedom, holds that awareness is brain based, because this denies reincarnation. Since the main goal of Buddhism and Hinduism is to be liberated from reincarnation, holding physicalist views as some Western teachers are doing nowadays, led by popular writers like Stephen Batchelor, is not in line with the dharma, Buddhism, Hindu, Christian, Taoism, or whatever.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:29am · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Oh...
    December 8, 2013 at 5:47am · Like
    Michael Zaurov Kyle Dixon I found your post pretty interesting. I studied philosophy and psychology in undergrad, so I've heard similar arguments before, and I've always been interested in this question. Though I do assert that there is no actual, empirical way to prove one way or another until death occurs, I am open to the Buddhist view and hope that materialism is not the case. I am curious if you've ever been under anesthesia? It's certainly valuable to ponder about these things, but it's wholly another matter to experience chemical changes to the brain and directly see the results. When I went under anesthesia for a minor operation, my awareness literally stopped. It was like blinking an eye, one second I'm in the operating room and the next I am in the recovery room. If my awareness was more than brain, wouldn't there still be a conscious existence in the interval between those two moments?

    "The implications that there is an external universe which is apprehended via the senses and translated by a brain are quite damning. If that is the case, since experience would never transcend its translation, there is no way to access or prove the existence of such an external universe, and so the logic would negate the initial premise"

    I do not see this as a valid argument. The fact that the external universe is a brain created symbol does not negate the initial premise that there is a universe which the senses perceive. The mind creates the universe, but there is still data being received by the senses. Whether or not you call that "external universe" or just vibrations, there is still something there, and that cannot be negated with any certainty.

    " Science will tell you outright that the brain runs the show and generates consciousness, yet they have no idea how it performs such a feat... it is nothing more than a theory."

    A theory with a lot of evidence. When the brain is functioning, we have a show. When the brain is not functioning, there is no show. Just because scientists do not know how consciousness is generated does not negate the evidence we have. There is a clear relationship between this electrified fatty meat in my skull and my experience. if you assert that your experience is not generated by the meat, then you could design a valid experiment to prove it. You could change the face of history. Maybe designing such an experiment is impossible, in which case one should not be so confident about their views, not until you die and actually find out directly what is the case.
    December 8, 2013 at 6:50am · Edited · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Michael, I'm of course not making any definitive statements, just some friendly inquiry. But for the sake of the discussion since it's very interesting; how would the external universe be proven? Or likewise an internal experience? I see what you're saying and it's a valid argument, I just personally feel that a model of that nature depends on a few presuppositions. Mainly, the inherency of sensory organs, fields and objects, objective and subjective experience, a sentient being and a universe, etc. It seems to me that these varying aspects of the equation are themselves open to scrutiny (something the dharma specializes in), and if those constituent aspects can be found to lack inherency, how would the model itself maintain its validity?

    Again, not saying anything is certain, but my personal experience has brought me to question the validity of these paradigms.

    The dharma definitely understands that the brain is special and maintains the integrity of certain functions. But the dharma in general does not accept that experience is generated by the brain, or I should say, it does not accept that the mind is relegated to (or product of) the brain.
    December 8, 2013 at 11:10am · Like · 2
    Dannon Flynn it seems that for every seemingly non-physical thing there is a seemingly material representation. There are chemicals that go with the experience of love, there are brain chemicals that go with every emotion, etc.... There are hormones that go with lust, passion. All we know is: when this arises, that arises. We know that they are related, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that the brain is the cause of experience. We simply know that they go together.

    We might assume that the radio receiver is singing the song we hear, when in fact it is only receiving radio waves that are broadcast from some remote location that carry the song. Yet we still need a radio to listen to it.

    Perhaps the brain is like a radio. If, when the brain dies, another brain will be born tuned to the same radio station that will be able to pick up the same signal.
    December 8, 2013 at 11:58am · Like · 2
    Ram Jayaram Keep it simple. Focus on the body's responses to the environment.
    December 24, 2013 at 12:02am · Like · 1</div>

Return to Awareness? This?

Din Robinson
from Peter Fenner's latest newsletter:

"When I write that the essence of Radiant Mind is “this,” you know what I mean. You know, for example, that “this” isn’t anywhere, and that we can’t realistically think about “this” because it isn’t a thing. We are on the same page together right now, the invisible page that encompasses everything and is the essence of Radiant Mind.

There is really nothing else to be doing but engaging with "this." The most significant thing is to stay connected with awareness and continue to develop our capacity to go beyond the singular events of pain and pleasure that accompany each day, and return more regularly and reliably to pure, timeless awareness."

when he says there's really nothing else to be doing but engaging with "this", he's still meeting you in the noise of your mind, what the more accurate truth is, is that there is nothing but this and within this arises the impression of a someone who can engage with this
Like · · December 25, 2013 at 11:50pm

    Soh Seeing an awareness to return to from singular events is to fail to see the true face of awareness that is not anything besides singular events... and singular events too are unborn, groundless and ungraspable. And any beyonds are delusions. Not seeing the empty nature of awareness.. awareness becomes another ground for grasping. Seeing the truth of anatta and actualizing the total exertion of events and action, there is effortlessly the full intimacy that is gaplessly arising as a radiant sound, radiant sight and completely alive and gapless action as there is absolutely no self or observer or actor besides these vivid experiencing/action. There is no one engaging with something else... nor is there someone passively watching things flow by in a state of dissociation. Instead there is only the full engagement and total action that is the activity of the whole (seamlessly interfusing activity) without an agent or self. Or a gap between doer and deed. This is not just a passive state of nondoership where things just happen but "you" arent engaging in it, which is kind of dissociative.
    December 26, 2013 at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 3
    Greg Goode I don't feel he's meeting me anywhere, but rather constructing a brand of his own and saying that I am already his brand. I also agree with Soh that it is unnecessary to add a "THIS" container on top of the clarity of events. It's also ironically counterproductive. Whenever you have a "this" you have a "that," which carries you right back to events anyway. Why bundle things into a single container with a leak in it?
    December 26, 2013 at 12:38am · Unlike · 5
    Din Robinson I'd like to repeat here what Shinzeng Young said in the video below:

    "It's good to have a practice that involves no choices whatsoever. Not even a choice as to directing what's happening in attention. Some people call this choiceless awareness, some people call it just sitting, some people call it the great perfection in tibetan dzogchen, or, the grand symbol in sanskrit mahamudra. There's different ways of describing it. I like to call it "do nothing", that's just my name for it."

    ~Shinzeng Young

    the whole point for me, is complete freedom, from any need to do, to understand, to express, but just to simply be... this involves not having or needing any preconceptions about life
    December 26, 2013 at 1:03am · Like
    Din Robinson I really like what you guys are saying about not adding a "this" unto the simplicity of what already is, the sounds, sights, smells...

    a "this" is just more conceptualizing...
    December 26, 2013 at 1:17am · Edited · Like
    Din Robinson that's why it's fun to share, happy holidays everyone
    December 26, 2013 at 1:14am · Like

Emptiness, Interdependence

Serene Blue

So I've been reading Bill Bodri's What is Enlightenment and have just come away more confused. He says Enlightenment is realizing this Pristine Awareness (is this the same thing as what Tibetans call the Clear Light of Mind?) that never changes and is not different from the forms that come and go within It. Nothing is outside of It he says, nothing is other than It and this IT is what you really are when there is no more clinging.

Odd thing to me is that he sounds like he's positing some sort of Eternal Luminous Awareness. I'd swear that's exactly how he keeps phrasing it. I get the strong impression he's positing that there is this True...well Something I guess that never changes. Another thing...he's quit using a Buddhist framework to explain things and the book is full of things like this Empty Awareness is your True Self. He's using mostly Advaita terms but insists Advaita isn't teaching something different from Buddhism.

I read Bernadette Peter's explanation of "What is No-Self" and it sounds *nothing* like what True Self-ers (or Bill Bodri) describe. Bernadette says that the teaching of No-Self (which I take from her explanation of it she actually means it as "No-True-Self") is the major difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

I then went back and read an old Xabir post and he pointed to a post on another board - something about a Senkya heresy (Xabir didn't actually make that post - he just merely linked to it as I recall). And for all the world the description sounds much like what Bill Bodri's book is positing is Enlightenment. Albeit Bodri did talk about how one has to discover the emptiness of phenomenon. Otherwise - he says until one discovers the emptiness of phenomenon then one still has subtle clinging going on.

But to me if the world is not other than this primordial awareness then duality (coming and going) is the very thing I am not "seeing" correctly. That there never has been a 'mirror reflecting" and there has never been a "Mind" in which all things are born or die and get reborn within again.

Does that make sense? I guess it's because I can come to no other conclusion upon reading the Heart Sutra. If things neither exist (permanence) nor don't exist (void) - then how can one posit a Mind that sits outside of time and space and acts like a big amphitheater for all the flux that goes on within it like what Bodri seems to keep implying? Then again - he seems to have shifted into using Vedantic terms to describe Enlightenment whereas his earliest books stuck strictly to a Buddhist framework. I wonder if this is because his original teacher, Master Nan Huai-Chin is now dead. BTW - can Enlightenment be described? I once read Master Nan Huai-Chin say it takes an incredibly vast accumulation of merit to be able to hear the very highest Dharma explained and yet experience no fear.
Like · · December 28, 2013 at 6:31am near Dallas, TX, United States

    Stuffs RedTurtle and Carole Luby like this.
Jaro Majer The problem most people have I think is with the language and misunderstanding the intention of the words used. As an example, one could say, in a Buddhist sense, that a person can have a constant realization of no-self and that in turn becomes the individuals constant, or permanent state of self reference... so in that sense, one can say, it is the "true Self" of all, without positing a self existing, eternal and transcendent cause of all. I'm merely stating that because all things have no-self as their true nature, that in turn is the Self of all, so in explanation it's going to sound a little paradoxical and it can be confusing, which is why all the great Masters say to rely on direct experience, not on discursive thought or written explanations. But, until that... of course we're going to have to try our best with discursive thought and written explanations. I hope this helps!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:43am · Like · 2
Jaro Majer I'm not at all familiar with Bill's works, by the way.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:48am · Like
Craig Nichols Re confusion are you looking for some kind of single highest and most correct Truth, perhaps with an assumption that if such Truth exists then everyone Truly Enlightened should agreed on what It Is?
    December 28, 2013 at 9:21am · Like
Craig Nichols For me everyone has a somewhat different take on things, conditioned by their experience and learning. So each teacher is sharing their own form of Enlightenment unless they're in a formal teaching framework eg a form of buddhism (and even then to some degree). Look long enough in a particular way and you will come to see things that way. Which way is best? Each of us has to choose for ourselves. And that choice will likely change over time. So no highest truth and no single authority other than our own experience.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:28am · Like · 1
Justin Chapweske The Buddhist view will get your further, for now. Later on, when you have realized all of this experientially, you'll see where the Advaita language comes from and how its not that bad.
    December 28, 2013 at 10:14am · Like · 2
Serene Blue Thx Jaro - your answer makes a lot of sense.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:39pm · Like · 1
Soh Bill bodri has always been speaking from one mind perspective. Anyway realization of Awareness is an important realization... though not an end. Mind is empty of mind but this fact does not deny the luminous clarity of Mind... that is the natural unfabricated pure knowingness and presence. One can realize Mind first then realize the empty nature of mind
    December 28, 2013 at 12:48pm · Edited · Like · 4
Serene Blue If Mind is empty of mind then why bother calling it Mind? Is this Mind experienced? If it's experienced doesn't that mean discrimination is involved? If one experiences doesn't that mean there's still an idea lurking about?
    December 28, 2013 at 12:54pm · Like
Soh No Mind should not be mistaken as denying the luminous depths of Mind but rather is pointing out the emptiness of inherent existence and dualities
    December 28, 2013 at 12:56pm · Like · 3
Soh Mind can be directly realized but only in the absence of all discriminations and conceptualizations
    December 28, 2013 at 7:43pm · Edited · Like · 2
Serene Blue Then my next question is - the very thing we experience - that is >CHANGE< - this Changing in fact does not change (things neither arise nor disappear) but it's the thinking/experiencing it as change that makes it 'delusion' or 'ignorance'.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:59pm · Like
Serene Blue Hmm...upon re-reading the above I'm not sure if I'm stating my question clearly. It's kind of hard to get across what I'm getting at.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:59pm · Like
Albert Hong The delusion is the whole structuring and appearance of change.

    For instance we usually say the tire is changing. A tire is undergoing erosion via use hence changing. So a thing is changing. There the entity and it is changing. See how the noun and verb seem
    Distinct.

    The delusion is the inherently existent tire. What's left is the fluxing of clarity, which doesn't
    Amount to anything because it is the exact of itself with nothing prior or during it.

    So most of dharma is trying to see through these reference points that we impute.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:05pm · Unlike · 2
Albert Hong An obvious example is these characters on facebook. They aren't inherently anything within themselves but are intimately linked with how we interpret and impute.

    So we can step back a little and defocus and its all just black shapes meeting a white background. These words don't actually formulate something or a complete existent picture. Just symbols relating to symbols but again you have to interpret that view within the context of all symbols.

    Or just step back. Colors, visual field, expanse of colors meeting other colors.

    Step back more and forget about colors, forget about really anything. Just mystery.

    What about location? Gone. What about thingness? Gone. Relationships between other aspects? Gone.

    See how far experientially you can go with that.

    Then do the exact opposite. Fabricate experience and concepts together. See what occurs then. Oh this is an iphone and it has this and this history.
    Its my iphone, i bought it. And i am typing this out and using these signs which in turn allows me to converse with others.

    See and feel how perception is weaves energetically by the patterning of how concepts frame reality. Especially the bond of i am and the bond of independent existence for objects.

    Its magical how it works, how strong the illusion is.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:16pm · Unlike · 7
Soh Well said!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:25pm · Like · 1
Albert Hong I love how the diamond sutra approaches this whole dilemma. The tree is not a tree,
    Hence a tree.

    How beautiful!

    That requires quite the journey.

    Mountains are seen to be actually empty of mountainness. Hence they are called mountains.

    We look at a mountain and we see that alright this is a visual appearance. It is dependent upon the condition of a working eye and sense object. Then we have the visual consciousness. On the basis of all that we say mountain. So from that we can easily see that the mountain is a built appearance arising due to certain conditions.

    At the same time the mountain is free from being a mountain. One can look at it as earth, or rocks, or pebbles. The mountain is infinitely divisible into infinite parts over and over again. We can see how the mountain on all aspects is dependent upon other things that are not the mountain.

    In each case we are loosening this intuition we have about the mountain. That there is an independent, singular, inherently existent mountain that would be there if you took everything away.

    But we easily can examine that not to be the case. With every fiber of our beingness we examine the mountain. Where is it???

    And we recognize oh yes its a convention on the basis of certain experience lining up.

    Alright something to ponder over.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:26pm · Unlike · 5
Soh Mind too is such a convention.. to answer sereneblue
    December 28, 2013 at 6:37pm · Like
Thomas Arta Really appreciate the clarity Albert, thanks!

    The idea of fabricating and exaggerating what we are trying to see through I have found very helpful in enquiry. What is a sense of inherency? What is a sense of ultimacy? Can I really get a feel for this so that I can sensitize to its arising and fluctuation? These can be really profound doors of enquiry. Cheers!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:41pm · Like
John Tan That is a very good presentation, Albert. Notice also how the mind is able to release and relief itself not from being non-conceptual but by seeing through "thingness" and realizing dependencies.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:26pm · Unlike · 4
    Amir Mourad "Nothing is outside of It he says"

    That is true, but only as far as one's experience is concerned. And the universe is not centered around human experience anymore than it is centered around the Earth.

    "nothing is other than It and this IT is what you really are when there is no more clinging."

    Ultimate reality is inseparable from one's own consciousness, yet it is also inseparable from one's own unconsciousness. It is inseparable from suffering, and it is also inseparable from liberation. It is impossible to escape from the inescapable.

    But - some people are so desperate that ultimate reality has to fit into human understanding, that it is very common to become blinded by the idea that it is equivalent with your own awareness.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:26pm · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Yes, indeed... the mountain can't be identified. Where does the "mountain" begin? The foothills and terrain leading up to the "mountain" have no line of demarcation or sign that says "here is the beginning of mountain". If we notice, this is true of all appearances... they have no independent point of description.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:34pm · Like

Crystal Clarity, Non-meditation, Sudden vs Gradual

Jackson Peterson
I noticed often when just sitting in mindful, aware meditation for very long periods of time, like three hours at a stretch, just observing without avoiding, following or engaging, all these thoughts, stories and emotions come and go, come and go. Eventually there seems to be no owner to any of it rather it just seems like meaningless brain chatter. It finally runs its course and a great stillness arises. The mind becomes crystal clear and the emotional tone becomes serene and content for no reason. Leaving the mind as it presents itself without judgment, it relaxes on its own. I guess all the "important" beliefs and self-image stories are really all just empty conditioning exhausting their agitation naturally.

When the sediment swirling in a jar of water slows down and settles naturally to the bottom, we find the crystal clear clarity of the water. I think this is interesting on how the nervous system and brain can relax into a calm state of equilibrium when truly left alone.
Like · · December 29, 2013 at 4:18am

    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, Viorica Doina Neacsu, Greg Goode and 14 others like this.
    Joel Agee Yes,the same experience here.
    December 29, 2013 at 4:49am · Like · 3
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I sometimes use the image of a wind-up toy. You know the ones with that key on the back that you turn around a couple of time, and then set the toy down on the floor to do whatever mechanical movements it's been constructed to do.

    Eventually the toy unwinds and comes to stillness.
    December 29, 2013 at 5:25am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland In the past I experienced advanced progress along the traditional stages of shamatha (though I had no clue about stages then). In the Tibetan map I was hovering around 8-9, which is the very end.

    The amount of calm, serenity, clarity, contentment, emotional stability, patience, etc. seemed out-of-this-world. At the time I was not pursuing structured contemplation of causes and effects, yet insights just fell into my lap. "Spiritual powers" started manifesting out of the blue.

    I'm telling this story in the spirit of caution.

    Since that time, I have regressed severely from such mental spaciousness and clarity. I don't have full understanding of the conditions and causes leading to both the increase and decrease of my personal shamatha. I especially long for the emotional stability and patience with which I could afford other people in my life the space and security that they seemed to appreciate so dearly.

    Though shamatha have had these and other fantastic effects, I have come to personally experience the inherent instability and impermanence of even such godly comfort. Shamatha may serve many noble intentions, but true freedom is not found even in this, the highest of places.
    December 29, 2013 at 5:45am · Edited · Like · 5
    Jon Norris Jackson Peterson, I think that’s exactly right. Repeated sessions of sitting in the 7-point posture of Vairocana, “just observing without avoiding, following or engaging”, reconfigures the neuronal network in the brain. It’s the opposite of a child ‘building up’ those networks; sitting ‘releases’ the contraction and restores the plasticity of the cortex. The non-intuitive part of dwelling in this intrinsic awareness (rigpa) is that it doesn’t make you more stupid; rather it frees up the circuits to form a quantum integration with primordial consciousness.

    Unless I am mistaken, what you are describing is the Mahamudra version of shi-né, (not a dualistic fixation between a subject and an external object), but rather turning awareness back on itself in an objectless meditation. This leads to the first naljor called ‘one-pointedness’ (rtse-gcig), maintaining presence of awareness in the absence of mental contents. The next step is to maintain that same presence while re-introducing mental contents. This is the Mahamudra version of lhag-thong, which achieves the second naljor, ‘simplicity’ (spros-bral).

    From that base, one taste and non-meditation can arise effortlessly. It is really not so different from the four chög-zhag of Dzogchen; it is just a little more structured at the beginning, and perhaps a little more stable for some. I think the reconfiguring of the brain is what achieves the stability. It would take a remarkable brain to achieve a stable lhun-drüp without it.
    Good stuff!
    December 29, 2013 at 6:31am · Like · 5
    Jackson Peterson Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, I would follow Jon Norris's advice as his above comment. In the Soto Zen tradition we stay just with this vividly aware empty presence noticing the phenomena of every kind. The mind state you describe is just more mind waves. Sit and notice for about 1hour, two is better, just like the OP. Do nothing but notice until the mind becomes brilliantly clear. Then rest in that brilliant clarity. This will rewire the brain and the brain waves will resonate to the frequency of Clear Light: then rigpa arises.
    December 29, 2013 at 7:07am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon For the four yogas of essence Mahāmudrā / four rnyal 'byors and four ting nge 'dzins of Dzogchen sem sde; non-duality does not arise until the third stage of each [ro gcig, nyis med or mnyam nyid], up until that point it (the nondual view) is merely an accurate inference.

    The four chög bzhags are 'continuations' and are predicated on the insight acquired in the third stage of the four fold systems mentioned above. So they are technically not the same as the aforementioned 'stages', but are more so four aspects (or qualities) of a single view
    December 29, 2013 at 7:44am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Kyle.. you talk from your reading not from experience, it seems you like to show us how much you read? However you are quite wrong in this case: Essence Mahamudra does not have the progressive system of the gradual Mahamudra of Gampopa. There is no "practice" in Essence Mahamudra, just resting in the Natural State that is present in every moment.
    December 29, 2013 at 7:48am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Ponlop Rinpoche explains Essence Mahamudra:

    "On this path, there is no need for either the elaborate methods of Mantra Mahamudra or the gradual training of Sutra Mahamudra. In Sutra Mahamudra, there are still some forms; for example, the practices of shamatha and v ipashyana meditation, as well as the practices of bodhichitta are retained. There is also a great deal of formal study. In Mantrayana Mahamudra, there is also a certain formality of method that can be seen in its reliance upon ceremony and ritual; for example, there are extensive liturgies, visualizations and mantra recitations. Thus, in this sense, Vajrayana Mahamudra is also a very formal way of introducing the nature of mind . In contrast, the Essence Mahamudra path is totally formless. The transmission happens instantaneously.

    Essence Mahamudra is nothing more than one’s naked, ordinary mind resting in the unfabricated state.

    In the Essence Mahamudra tradition, all conceptual clinging, such as clinging to ideas of “sacred and profane” or “virtuous and non-virtuous, ” is cut through and we work directly with the experience of mind and its nature . The lineage guru points out the nature of mind to us, directly and nakedly. This kind of pointing out instruction is very genuine. It is not something that we can mimic or repeat. We cannot “try it out” one time and say, “That was just a rehearsal. It did no t work out, so okay, let’s do the same thing again.” That is not how it works. In the tradition of this lineage, we get one direct and naked pointing out, which has an effect. Throughout the history of Essence Mahamudra, pointing out has always happened in a very simple and ordinary way. This type of pointing out typifies the Essence Mahamudra approach, where we are working directly with our experiences of ordinary, worldly life, as well as our experience of the nature of mind."
    December 29, 2013 at 8:05am · Like
    Kyle Dixon That's okay Jax we can have differing opinions.

    The formula for these are essentially identical; (i) cultivation of stillness, (ii) familiarization with movement in relation to stillness, (iii) recognition of the non-duality or non-arising of stillness and movement, (iv) continuation.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:06am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon... Didn't you read the text from Ponlop. You are not describing Essence Mahamudra again... Its not an opinion... You are just plain wrong!
    December 29, 2013 at 8:08am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I did read it. It did not contradict what I wrote, but we can agree to disagree, that is the beauty of opinions.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:11am · Like
    Kyle Dixon As he said, the system works directly with the mind (the first two yogas), and its nature (the latter two yogas).
    December 29, 2013 at 8:15am · Like
    John Tan Does "no-practice" in essence Mahamudra or Dzogchen mean resting in natural state? "No practice" to me does not mean "resting in any natural state" but "resting" now turns into natural expression of suchness in activities and action...encounter and meet situations.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:24am · Like · 3
    Jon Norris Jackson Peterson, actually Gampopa taught both a pure form of Essence Mahamudra and a Four Yogas form also under the heading of Essence Mahamudra. He seemed to tailor the pointing out to the student's level. We shouldn't put too fine a point on it. Both versions bypass all the lower sutric and tantric methods. For me, an absolutely pure Essence Mahamudra has the same problem as a pure trekcho, and that is it could result in a spaced-out condition. The student could be totally enlightened, but has no reference point for enlightenment, and thus can soon lose it without knowing he has lost it! Without going through the four naljors, the brain never got reconfigured, so the state of enlightenment is almost impossible to stabilize. Does that make any sense?
    December 29, 2013 at 8:27am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says the same; the stabilization of the definitive view rides off the heels of the stabilization acquired in zhi gnas [śamatha] and lhag mthong. If that stabilization is not present then there is little hope for maintaining the definitive view.

    Dudjom Lingpa also says this.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:32am · Like · 1
    Jon Norris Yes Kyle Dixon, I recently posted a piece by Norbu in the Dzogchen Discussion Group where he talks about his own struggles with shamatha. He was quite honest about how long it took him to 'get it', but how important it was for taming the mind..
    December 29, 2013 at 8:36am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon John, practice is a big part of 'resting in the natural state', and generally situations are encountered and integrated with by training in the three doors; body, speech and mind.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:41am · Like · 1
    Jon Norris The ‘sudden’ versus ‘gradual’ controversy is as old as Buddhism. It has haunted Tibetan Buddhism ever since the famous debate between Heshang Moheyan of the Northern Chán School and Kamalaśīla of the Indian Madhyamaka School. No less than the Tibetan Emperor, Trisong Detsen, presided over the debate, and when Kamalaśīla was declared the winner, the emperor had Moheyan’s books burned! Centuries later we discover that the Dalai Lamas were practicing Dzogchen in secret. This sort of hypocrisy serves no purpose, not then and not now. I am convinced that 99.9% of all practitioners will benefit from a combination of gradual practice and sudden leap. They are both necessary. Neither works well in isolation. By itself, the gradual path can become a subtle trap substituting religious credentials for realization. By itself, the sudden path can become another sort of trap substituting esoteric experiences for realization. Yet, by working together, the gradual path creates a favorable karmic environment in which the sudden path can manifest, and the sudden path provides those glimpses of the changeless nature of spontaneous presence that cut through the dualistic limitations of the gradual methods. It is that combination of perspectives that helps us avoid falling into extremes.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:55am · Like · 6
    Jackson Peterson Great comments Jon! My point is that the "sudden school" is a valid teaching. A good teacher doesn't compromise with resorting to gradual methods. The student returns and returns but the master remains in the Natural State. It brings about a complete transformation in the mind/brain the student, like hitting the "reset" button. That reset button gets hit again and again with each encounter until it "self-refreshes". The view is really that of the Prajnaparamita teachings. My first Kagyu master of Mahamudra was Sachyu Tulku at Swayambhu in Nepal in 1978. He transmitted this "essence" by his simple presence of being the Natural State. My "sudden enlightenment" Chan teacher in China transmitted this same Dharma to me via questions and responses that obliterated my discursive mind. The Natural State was fully and nakedly exposed. I have never met a Lama or teacher, including Norbu and all my other Dzogchen teachers that had that capacity. I would say Norbu is more a teacher coming from the Sambhogakaya approach. Sudden Enlightenment teachers are purely Dharmakaya approach.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:29pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson I am not "against" the gradual approach, I am simply saying that the "sudden approach" is its own teaching method. Often I employ both together, but not out of necessity, but because of time limitations, especially when teaching a group. Its a "one on one" transmission.
    December 29, 2013 at 7:06pm · Like · 1
    Jon Norris Jackson Peterson, I understand and appreciate your efforts. I guess I worry too much about the fact that this just a Face Book page and we really don’t know how experienced and realized the group members are. For me, there are two aspects to realization:
    1. ‘Being’ in the natural state
    2. ‘Awareness’ of being in the natural state

    By oscillating back and forth, one develops a sentience about when one is ‘in’ and when one is ‘out’ of the natural state. Then we can ‘train it up’ by dealing with ‘outflow’ (zag pa) etc.

    In a recent post, you wrote: “Primordial awareness is a sentient cognizance that is not witnessing experience, nor is it an element within experience as the cognizant ‘part’. Rather experience IS cognizant sentience.”

    I agree completely, but I always worry when I see statements like ‘This is it!’ or ‘There is no practice.’ that someone will read this and just assume they are enlightened and wander off in a fool’s paradise.
    The irony is, I once argued with Chogyam Trungpa about his being 'too gradual' and now it's me that has cold feet! Guess I'm getting old.
    December 29, 2013 at 9:27pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Lol Jon Norris, I love your comments! It's the "sweet grandmother" aspect that makes us think other's may just go off in some "false paradise". But I have visited there and can tell you, no one is there! Its a very "short stay" hotel. They are back here working diligently on the gradual path! Lol!
    December 29, 2013 at 10:34pm · Like · 1

Nonduality, Recognition, Two Levels of Emptiness

Jackson Peterson
Non-duality beyond the lower yanas:

Primordial awareness is a sentient cognizance that is not witnessing experience nor is it an element within experience as the cognizant "part". Rather experience IS cognizant sentience.

Form IS emptiness, emptiness IS Dharmakaya IS form. That means that appearances and karmic traces can't block primordial cognizant sentience as they ARE primordial cognizant sentience appearing as an infinite variety of experiences. Any "obstructions" are fully unobstructed primordial cognizance. At no time is this primordial awareness absent.

Every mind-moment is equally self-appearing luminous primordial awareness.

When on an island where everything is made of gold, anything other than gold is naturally absent.

This is why in Essence Mahamudra and Dzogchen it is taught that there is no progression, no path and no attainment. It's always as it is...
Like · · December 25, 2013 at 10:57pm

    John Ahn, Stuffs RedTurtle, Din Robinson and 6 others like this.
    Aditya Prasad Never understood why this is considered beyond the lower yanas. Heshang Moheyan taught this view, I think -- and both Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa endorsed him, AFAICT.
    December 26, 2013 at 2:07am · Like
    Kyle Dixon It's only different in the approach; instead of working up towards prajñāpāramitā via dispelling or transforming obscurations preemptively, prajñāpāramitā is introduced on the outset, and then obscurations exhaust themselves via resting in that wisdom.
    December 26, 2013 at 2:32am · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon Also, it's not that there's no basis, path and result in dzogchen, the basis is prajñāpāramitā, which requires introduction and recognition. Once recognized the basis becomes the path, and when one's knowledge of wisdom is complete (meaning vidyā is completely purified of mind and karmic traces) the result is buddhahood.
    December 26, 2013 at 2:55am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Right on Kyle!

    Aditya, I don't consider Zen a lower vehicle. I am referring to the Tibetan nine vehicle schema of the Nyingmapa.
    December 26, 2013 at 2:56am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Well, Kyle I would add that its not necessary to "purify" anything but rather to recognize the Kadag, primordial purity of all dharmas. That is in itself is "purification" without anything being "purified".
    December 26, 2013 at 2:59am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon Yeah, I just mean that afflictive traces remain latent until buddhahood.
    December 26, 2013 at 3:03am · Like · 5
    Aditya Prasad Wouldn't Zen be part of the third yana in Dzogchen?
    December 26, 2013 at 3:06am · Like
    Kyle Dixon That being so, it is very important to distinguish mind and wisdom because all meditation is just that: all methods of purifying vāyu and vidyā are that; and in the end at the time of liberation, vidyā is purified of all obscurations because it is purified of the mind.
    -- Stainless Space by Longchenpa [per Malcolm]
    December 26, 2013 at 3:12am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson I love Longchenpa, but the notion that Dharmakaya requires a purification process as though it is in need of repair, is not the definitive view of Garab Dorje, nor mine. The empty Zhi has never been defiled. So what to do? Recognize the empty nature of the current afflicted consciousness. The emptiness of the afflicted consciousness is not a different emptiness of the Dharmakaya: just my opinion. With Longchenpa it is crucial to understand the exact audience he is addressing in a particular text.
    December 26, 2013 at 3:50am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Dharmakāya doesn't require purification, but is the result as the absence of contamination. The basis is also originally pure [ka dag]. The reason dharmakāya isn't innately self-evident is due to confusion regarding the nature of oneself and one's experience. So it is one's condition which is purified through familiarization with wisdom.

    Mind becomes unobscured Buddha mind [dharmakāya] by exhausting obscurations. Wisdom is originally pure, however due to conditioning, our knowledge of wisdom requires introduction and refinement. When that knowledge is complete, emptiness is realized, dharmatā is exhausted and buddhahood remains.
    December 26, 2013 at 4:12am · Edited · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon Longchenpa is saying that vidyā, as knowledge of wisdom, requires refinement.

    Wisdom [ye shes] is never defiled, however vidyā can become associated with confusion and therefore can take on the appearance of that confusion, appearing as the vijñāna aggregate for example. Vidyā appears as afflicted mind in sentient beings, and then manifests as dharmakāya for buddhas.
    December 26, 2013 at 4:12am · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Gee, I see the co-emergent aspect of Kadag (emptiness) along with a "defiled consciousness" to be the ever present self-liberation of all appearances. I see your view as a gradual process of refinement and purification. All that you "do" according to your view leads to a " result". I see the "result" as primordially present without need of a process to make it be what it already and always is. Maybe your view is "Anuyoga" that still has the flavor if transformation and a purification process of subtle energies. But that too is a valid path that results in the view of Ati, that I am espousing. Just saying...
    December 26, 2013 at 4:15am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson You can't purify that which has never been defiled..,
    December 26, 2013 at 4:20am · Like · 1
    Albert Hong You can turn lead into gold but only when the lead was always gold to begin with.
    December 26, 2013 at 4:24am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon That's all well and good, we're allowed to have our opinions!
    December 26, 2013 at 4:30am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon “Having simply identified vidyā, some people, who lack even a trace of any meditation, claim they have experienced the extinction into dharmatā and there is nothing more to spiritual awakening than this. That is an enormous mistake! The qualities of realization mature through the power of gradual practice. This is how you must reach the state of liberation."
    - Dudjom Lingpa
    December 26, 2013 at 4:32am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon The 'process' isn't gradual or causal because wisdom is originally pure and naturally perfected. So nothing is being transformed, purified or newly accomplished in that respect. The basis, as wisdom, is indeed primordially present, however due to conditioning we are either completely ignorant of that wisdom, or our knowledge is unripened and requires refinement. So the basis must become the result.

    There's no process to change, or alter wisdom. The 'result' is the absence of delusion and karmic traces which obstruct the full effulgence of wisdom.
    December 26, 2013 at 4:40am · Like · 4
    Jackson Peterson This is a gradual view not the view of Ati, in my opinion. It's the result of the contamination of the lower yanas views. The gradual path is hugely useful but is not Ati. There is no "entity" that needs to realize or recognize, hence "recognition " lies on the side of samsara. Just speaking from how it's seen here..
    December 26, 2013 at 5:31am · Like · 1
    Nicholas Mason There's theory and then there's practice.
    December 26, 2013 at 5:34am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Jax, yes, recognition, non-recognition, samsara, nirvana, and so on, all occur within the mind. That however doesn't negate their application and liberating qualities.

    I'm not advocating for an entity which needs to realize or recognize, though recognition and realization still occur.

    From the standpoint of wisdom, none of this is valid and nothing occurs. In contrast though, from our relative standpoint, there is a basis, path and result, and that apparent process is what the system is concerned with.
    December 26, 2013 at 5:44am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon 99% of individuals require integration and familiarization. The non-gradual individuals [cig car ba's] are said to be as rare as stars in the day time, and the Dalai Lama attests that there hasn't been a cig car ba for centuries.
    December 26, 2013 at 5:49am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Atiyoga itself is 'non-gradual' (Malcolm even goes as far as to say that 'non-gradual' isn't an appropriate title, but that Dzogpa Chenpo is 'primordial') because wisdom isn't being approached in a gradual way, but rather one is introduced directly, and the path is then familiarization with wisdom.
    December 26, 2013 at 5:56am · Edited · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Kyle, there is an wisdom awareness (yeshe) that requires no salvation. Dream-like entities arise that don't recognize, but they are empty of inherent existence and have never "arisen". Vipassana is what reveals this primordial freedom.
    December 26, 2013 at 6:06am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Afflicted traces are empty from the beginning and can't bind what is also empty primordially.
    December 26, 2013 at 6:10am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Yes well I'm not saying ye shes requires salvation, nor am I advocating for the inherent validity of an entity which attains an inherent liberation.

    Afflictive traces (along with everything), are empty from the very beginning, however that doesn't mean we are innately in recognition of this. Afflictive traces also become habitual in nature, so even after recognition of wisdom has occurred, traces still continue to surface. This is why the nature of mind is not equivalent to primordial wisdom, because the nature of mind is endowed with traces which must be exhausted.
    December 26, 2013 at 6:28am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon, that's a great explanation, but not how its experienced here... Please have a very merry Christmas!
    December 26, 2013 at 7:14am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson "Traces are the Dharmakaya", when seen as-is.
    December 26, 2013 at 7:22am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Yes, (traces are dharmakāya) while resting in the view, but unless one is an adept the view is not always stable. For most vidyā fluctuates after recognition due to propensities, and as a result their practice is divided between meditation (effortless resting in the natural state) and post-meditation (everyday relative experience). Meditation and post-meditation are not intermingled until the path of no more learning, which is essentially buddhahood.

    But Merry X-Mas to you too and glad we can share our opinions in a productive manner.
    December 26, 2013 at 7:47am · Edited · Unlike · 3
    Soh Hi Jax, you yourself spoke of the need to recognise kadag then criticize kyle for speaking about recognition lol
    December 26, 2013 at 8:02am · Like · 5
    Soh Posted in my blog in January 2008: What is Self?
    Posted by: Soh
    What is "Self"?

    3+ years ago, Thusness/Passerby wrote this to explain a text to someone:
    Life (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
    The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
    and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
    Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
    A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
    Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense the karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
    it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.

    He further adds a clarification two weeks ago:

    After cycles of refining and stabilizing non-dual experiences,
    karmic propensity too reveals itself as empty.
    Momentum arises spontaneously and subsides instantaneously;
    Yet has never in anyway obscured its own luminosity.
    All experiences though diverse are always so,
    this is the unborn always found present in all diversities.
    Never personify or objectify 'unborn' into an entity,
    but sees all phenomena that dependently originate as luminous and empty.
    If any non-dualist finds difficulty in sustaining non-dual experiences,
    this the pathless path of spontaneous presence and natural clarity.

    As Thusness mentioned, do note that an equal emphasis must be place on its 'empty nature' apart from its luminosity.

    Another great article on "What Is The Me?" by Toni Packer can be found at http://www.springwatercenter.org/teachers/packer/articles/whatisme/.

    Regarding the link between how we perceive a separate self and our karmic propensities (deep conditionings/momentum), please read The Spell of Karmic Propensities.
    Springwater Center: Toni Packer: Articles
    www.springwatercenter.org
    What Is The "Me"? The following article was adapted from a talk by Toni Packer o...See More
    December 26, 2013 at 8:16am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
    Jackson Peterson That recognition is on the samsaric side and is part of the dream. Our primordial cognizance has never been in need if a recognition. Traces don't affect it because its empty. All experience IS this nature as experienced.
    December 26, 2013 at 8:16am · Like
    Jackson Peterson John is right on, but not about a need "to place emphasis". That placing of emphasis is a karmic act. Placing emphasis is as empty as not placing emphasis. There is no special significance over another. All experience is already self-releasing. Primordial cognizance is empty cognizance which is always exactly what you are.
    December 26, 2013 at 8:22am · Like
    Jackson Peterson There is no "being", that sounds like "eternalism"
    December 26, 2013 at 8:24am · Like
    Jackson Peterson No, because empty cognizance is appearance. Its free of both extremes..
    December 26, 2013 at 8:25am · Like
    Jackson Peterson No "free of extremes" is the middle way
    December 26, 2013 at 8:28am · Like
    Jackson Peterson All concepts are fiction...
    December 26, 2013 at 8:29am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Now your talking!
    December 26, 2013 at 8:29am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Have you studied Essence Mahamudra? It's easier than Dzogchen.
    December 26, 2013 at 8:33am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Good... Then we know this chit chat is conceptual emptiness. Rest as what is appearing. Co-emergent Dharmakaya is self-knowing luminosity as empty appearance. Every situation is that. End of effort.
    December 26, 2013 at 8:39am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Every situation is that, from the standpoint of the view.

    Otherwise, as Dudjom Lingpa says:

    "If you do not know how to distinguish between the ālaya and the dharmakāya, you may take the ālaya and the ālayavijñāna as the path, in which case you will not transcend the three realms. Why? The actual ālaya is something immaterial, thinking nothing, a space-like vacuity and blankness in which appearances are impeded. Know that you come to that state in deep, dreamless sleep, when you faint, and when you are dying. [364] As a result of engaging in conceptual negation and affirmation, the ālaya is aroused, and if someone takes that as sublime meditation and stabilizes it, know that he may become demented, stupid, and totally ignorant. There are some teachers who identify that as the great, intellect-transcending extinction into dharmatā. If you get stuck there, it is certain that you will be cast into existence in the realm of gods who are devoid of discernment."
    December 26, 2013 at 8:42am · Like · 4
    John Tan Hi Kyle,
    You mentioned in another post but I find it more relevant to post it here:
    “I'd say from the standpoint of primordial wisdom; confusion arises as wisdom... but from the standpoint of confusion; confusion is confusion, and wisdom is something to be recognized.”

    I think we went through some clarifications of the terms “primordial wisdom” and “rigpa”. IMO “confusion arises as wisdom” does not apply from the standpoint of primordial wisdom but is rather is seen from the standpoint of rigpa.

    Am I right to say that?
    December 26, 2013 at 2:03pm · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon John, yes you're right, rigpa is knowledge of wisdom and so 'confusion arising as wisdom' would be known by rigpa.
    December 26, 2013 at 3:37pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Gee I disagree again, but that's ok: rigpa is NOT knowledge of wisdom, but is the wisdom itself that has arisen. "Confusion arising as wisdom" would not be known by rigpa because in rigpa there is no "confusion arising as wisdom". This is the problem when these teachings are explained intellectually and not "yogic-ly." Confusion and wisdom are mutually exclusive conditions. When in rigpa you don't experience any confusion or the transformation of confusion into wisdom. By the way, confusion cannot ever transform into wisdom, anymore than a rock can transform into broccoli. When confusion ceases, the ever present primordial wisdom is now experiencable. The Dharmakaya aspect of confusion when recognized by a mind, dissolves the confusion appearance. The focus shifts from the reified form to its emptiness. Wisdom is a permanent quality of the Dharmakaya. If it could transform into confusion and then back again, then it wouldn't be permanent. Even though the Dharmakaya is completely empty of reification, affliction and substance, it's not empty of its permanent attributes of wisdom, power and compassion. Confusion arising is a daydream. We shouldn't think that our dreaming state at night "turns into our waking state". The dreaming simply ceases revealing the awake state. Does any of this make sense John Tan?
    December 26, 2013 at 7:10pm · Like · 2
    Amir Mourad Refer to it by a million different names if you need to - call it awareness, emptiness, nothingness, Atman (self), Anatman (No-Self), Shiva, Brahman, Dharmakaya, the Tao, Buddha-Nature - but when it comes to that realm which does not belong to one's attachment to projections - whatever you think it is, that is precisely what it is not.
    December 26, 2013 at 8:23pm · Like · 3
    Amir Mourad "Wisdom is a permanent quality of the Dharmakaya."

    There are no permanent qualities in existence. Neither are there impermanent qualities. What you understand permanent or impermanent are nothing more than the shadows of one's own intellect.

    But as far as wisdom is concerned - the so called Dharmayaka knows nothing about wisdom. It is so self-sufficient in itself, that it is not even aware of its own existence - it cannot even make the distinction between one thing and another, let alone become capable of any knowledge which can be transformed into "wisdom".

    It is a very human thing, to try and impose our own mental qualities onto what we are referring to as Truth. Wisdom belongs to the mind. Delusion belongs to the mind. Enlightenment belongs to the mind. Ignorance also belongs to the mind. The Dharmakaya - when it is discovered through a human body, can manifest as wisdom. But it is essential to know that this is not something human-centric.
    December 26, 2013 at 8:28pm · Like · 1
    John Tan No worries Jax, I understand your "yogic view".
    December 26, 2013 at 8:58pm · Like · 1
    John Tan I seriously do not know enough of Dzogchen and Atiyoga to comment but from what that was written and conveyed, I do not think that Jax is subscribing to the view that he is already in full Buddhahood..lol…but I think he is emphasizing that there is “no gradualness” in Ati.

    So the question is where and when is exactly the entry point of Dzogchen or Ati?

    1. Direct recognition of clarity?

    2. Direct insight of anatta?

    3. Direct insight of 2-fold emptiness?

    4. No recognition and realization needed but once introduced to the view, the practitioner must treat it that all appearances are in a state of nirvana and practice according to this view with full confidence.

    Btw, in Dzogchen realization means the full actualization and integration of the view?
    December 26, 2013 at 9:22pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh According to Malcolm Smith you dont need to realize emptiness to practice dzogchen. You need to recognise clarity. Emptiness or kadag is realized later.
    December 26, 2013 at 10:25pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Soh, I disagree with Malcolm because we start with Trekchod as the realization of "Kadag" which is the primordially pure state of emptiness. Without realization of emptiness one cannot "cut through" the contraction to total relaxation. The contraction is caused by the non-recognition of emptiness. Realizing rigpa does occur at Trekchod. That is total and complete realization of enlightenment. Its good enough. Thogal takes it to realizing the emptiness of the body and subtle body which results in the body of light. Thogal is not necessary for liberation.
    December 26, 2013 at 9:50pm · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson John Tan wrote:

    So the question is where and when is exactly the entry point of Dzogchen or Ati?

    1. Direct recognition of clarity?

    Yes! When first introduced, through either a "direct introduction", a vipassana moment, or moment of reading. Whenever or however: the moment contains a wisdom "certainty" that leaves no doubt. All further practice is aimed at stabilizing that "certainty" experience.

    2. Direct insight of anatta?

    Rigpa includes anatta. Its how things are seen: "transparent, empty self and empty-forms". If not anatta then its not rigpa.

    3. Direct insight of 2-fold emptiness?

    Rigpa always contains two fold emptiness. At least here... automatically.

    4. No recognition and realization needed but once introduced to the view, the practitioner must treat it that all appearances are in a state of nirvana and practice according to this view with full confidence.

    No, John. Realization and recognition is replaced by the natural "certainty" of rigpa which means one then continues in "non-meditation" with no "thought" or "view" in mind. What you are describing is done in Maha and Anu yoga. Its imaginary. In rigpa its seen that all is in a state of nirvana without "maintaining" such a view. Its one's perspective, how you are actually experiencing reality.

    Btw, in Dzogchen realization means the full actualization and integration of the view?

    Realization means rigpa has replaced sem (dualistic consciousness). Rigpa is always fully what it is because it is the Dharmakaya. If one is "integrating" with rigpa, it makes no sense. You are either in rigpa or not. If not, you sense the need to integrate due to "separation" from. If in rigpa, everything is always in a condition of integration or its not rigpa.
    December 26, 2013 at 10:24pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Yes, thank you... He is wrong. Rigpa contains the realization of emptiness non-referentially, inference will not permit Trekchod realization. Rigpa contains the direct perception of emptiness as prajna. If you don't have rigpa you can't practice either Trekchod or thogal. His theory is goofy.
    December 26, 2013 at 10:41pm · Like · 1
    Malcolm Smith @ John Tan: "So the question is where and when is exactly the entry point of Dzogchen or Ati?" Direct introduction, as has been said thousands of times.
    December 26, 2013 at 11:16pm · Like · 2
    John Tan Thks Malcolm, similarly "John Tan" has changed thousands of times.
    December 26, 2013 at 11:36pm · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Malcolm Smith, what you cited is not "standard fare" Dzogchen theory, interesting though. If rigpa occurs at "direct introduction" as you say, and I agree, that rigpa contains the insight of two-fold emptiness. Self is seen to be absent and fictional. "Objects" appear "empty" holographic display and transparent as empty-forms. Along with that is total "certainty" of that, like understanding "sourness" by biting into a lemon directly. Inferential understanding of emptiness is useless and non-liberating. Are you kidding me? You don't agree?
    December 26, 2013 at 11:37pm · Like · 1
    Malcolm Smith What I cited was an opinion from the Dzogchen snyan rgyud tradition. It is extremely secret, and now I see why. And now deleted.
    December 26, 2013 at 11:43pm · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Malcolm, you posted that many times... What's so secret about such theory? It's just information.
    December 26, 2013 at 11:45pm · Like
    Kyle Dixon Jax, 'confusion arising as wisdom' simply means there is direct knowledge into the nature of phenomena. It does not mean that confusion literally arises as wisdom as if a transformation is occurring at all times. Nor does it mean that rigpa knows confusion. It simply means that the discerning knowledge called rigpa (in the wake of recognizing the nature of mind) can properly and effectively distinguish mind and wisdom. Ergo instead of confusion there is wisdom i.e. 'confusion dawns as wisdom'.
    December 27, 2013 at 1:32am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Most recognize clarity during introduction. Clarity however is a provisional 'rigpa' because it is mind, and therefore cannot discern mind from wisdom. The true discernment comes with recognition of the ultimate nature of mind [sems nyid]. Once that occurs the proper discernment is present and wisdom is definitively recognized. That knowledge then fluctuates because it is immature, however with practice it becomes stable. Eventually rigpa will come to its full measure which is realization of emptiness (realization of ka dag), or the realization of profound emptiness as the completely unobscured three kāyas (realization of ka dag chen po) which results from other practices.

    Jax and I disagree on these things, but that is okay.
    December 27, 2013 at 1:42am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Thanks Kyle, that passage oddly popped up right after contemplating that very idea! Strange world
    December 27, 2013 at 1:49am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon, I don't think you can say with authority that most "only realize "clarity" (as the alaya) and not actual rigpa at "direct introduction". In such a case the "direct introduction" to rigpa was a total failure and the teacher should be retrained! The purpose of the direct introduction is not to introduce the student to a level of their karmic mind! Where do you get these goofy ideas?
    December 27, 2013 at 2:30am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Clarity is a suitable foundation for one's practice, that is why clarity is also given the name rigpa. Once that capacity is ascertained then there are further practices available to refine that recognition, such as the sems dzins and so on (which will help bring about a recognition of the definitive nature of mind).

    Traces of the karmic mind remain latent until buddhahood, so whether one recognizes clarity during introduction, or recognizes the definitive nature of mind [sems nyid], depends on the individual's capacity (which varies from person to person).
    December 27, 2013 at 3:14am · Edited · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Wow! Now you are saying a state of alaya is an acceptable foundation for practice! What a switch! Lol.. This is really poor advice! We have just factored rigpa out of the "direct introduction". This really is the dark age for the teachings!
    December 27, 2013 at 3:29am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Until sems nyid is recognized there is no discernment available to differentiate the ālaya from dharmakāya.
    December 27, 2013 at 3:31am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson The "clarity" of the alaya has never been called "rigpa", but rather "sem" or afflicted mind.
    December 27, 2013 at 3:32am · Like
    Jackson Peterson That's what the direct introduction is for Kyle! To point what is rigpa versus sem!
    December 27, 2013 at 3:33am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is very clear that the clarity of mind is 'rigpa mistaken as illusory mind', i.e. rigpa 'defiled by many cognitions'.
    December 27, 2013 at 4:08am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Posted this here awhile ago:

    The knowing capacity of mind i.e. clarity is the most coarse form of rig pa [skt. vidyā]. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls it 'rigpa mistaken as illusory mind'. He also refers to it by the name Vimalimitra gave it, which is 'the vidyā that apprehends characteristics'...

    Defined by Vimalimitra here:
    "The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: 'the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names', is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions." [Per Malcolm]

    It's 'rigpa' because it's the same capacity which is refined with insight, but that coarse form of rigpa is simply the mere knowing of mind. Knowing which is associated with dualistic perception is a defiled cognition. As opposed to knowing associated with the kāyas, which is the rigpa which serves as the basis, path and result in Dzogchen.

    Until the clarity of mind is recognized as non-arisen, via recognition of the nature of mind [tib. sems nyid, skt. cittatā] the discerning vidyā of the path is not present. Once the nature of mind is directly ascertained, primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] also becomes evident, and the discerning knowledge which subsequently results is the vidyā that serves as the foundation for liberation, because it knows the kāyas. Which is to say that there is no mistake about what one's nature is. That vidyā, is the antithesis of avidyā [delusion], and can effectively discern the ālaya (afflictive basis of mind) from the dharmakāya.

    For most, that (discerning) vidyā comes on as a flash of experiential insight, however due to karmic propensities it isn't stable and fluctuates. For that reason one's initial discernment is termed 'unripened vidyā'. Vidyā ripens via the dissolution of karmic traces which sustain delusion and obscure wisdom. The process of ripening is the path, and when afflictive traces are completely exhausted, one realizes emptiness and the path becomes the result i.e. vidyā as dharmakāya.

    So it's the same rigpa all along, refined through insight and integration, however the rigpa as mere knowing isn't equivalent to the full measure of rigpa as dharmakāya. Not due to being two separate rigpas, but due to the former being mind and the latter being completely emancipated from mind.
    December 27, 2013 at 4:23am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon Tsoknyi Rinpoche states:
    "This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa].
    Great masters traditionally give something called pointing-out instruction, which literally means bringing one face to face with one's true nature. What is this nature that is being introduced? A practitioner of shamatha who has cultivated a sense of stillness to the extent that there is no longer any dividing point between thought occurrence and simply resting experiences a certain quality of knowing or presence of mind. This knowing is what the practitioner is brought face to face with - or rather, the very identity of this knowing as being rootless and groundless, insubstantial. By recognizing this, one is introduced to self-existing awareness, rangjung rigpa."
    December 27, 2013 at 4:34am · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Its foolish to speak of "defiled rigpa". That is like saying "distorted space". For the simplicity of the general audience rigpa should mean only the nirvanic wisdom state of the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is never unstable or defiled. Recognizing that perfect nature is what rigpa is. Ones nature has never been defiled or conditioned. These subtle word games are so useless. I would rather discuss actual experience, not scholarly perspectives regarding theoretical states.
    December 27, 2013 at 5:13am · Like
    Justin Struble Excellent dialogue.
    December 27, 2013 at 6:46am · Like · 4
    Jackson Peterson "If one cannot find this pure presence, or rigpa, one will never
    find Dzogchen: to find Dzogchen, one must bring forth the naked state of rigpa. The state of rigpa is the pillar of the Dzogchen teachings, and it is this state that the master seeks to transmit in the Direct Introduction, the transmission of which, as my master Changchub Doije showed me, is not dependent on either formal ritual initiations or intellectual explanations."

    Namkhai Norbu from his book: The Crystal and the Way of Light
    December 27, 2013 at 6:56am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon "General delusion [avidyā] is caused by the stain of vidyā [rig pa] not recognizing the manifest basis, through which vidyā itself becomes polluted with delusion. Though vidyā itself is without the stains of cognition, it becomes endowed with stains, and through its becoming enveloped in the seal of mind, the vidyā of the ever pure essence is polluted by conceptualization. Chained by the sixfold manas, it is covered with the net of the body of partless atoms, and the luminosity becomes latent."
    - Longchenpa

    I agree that the definitive rigpa is direct knowledge of wisdom, as ascertained via recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid]. However not everyone has the ripened capacity to recognize the nature of mind right away, and for that reason the clarity of mind can serve as a suitable basis for practice (in those cases). It is by no means definitive, but it is necessary more often than not.

    This is why the stages of sem sde are laid out as the four contemplations [tib. ting nge 'dzin, skt. samādhi]; gnas pa being the first, mi gyo ba being the second, and mnyam nyid the third. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche states that the definitive view does not dawn until recognition of the nature of mind occurs, which is the third ting 'dzin i.e. mnyam nyid.

    Therefore preliminary practices are needed for most. Meaning the cultivation of equanimity and so on to calm the karmic winds via practices such as śamatha. Norbu Rinpoche states that without a stable śamatha one's practice is destined to be wrought with difficulties and distraction. You've already voiced that you do not believe in this aspect of the teaching though (when it was brought up in the older thread where Rongzom's advocacy of śamatha was addressed), and you're welcome to your opinion.

    According to Ontrul Tenpa'i Wangchuk: "The Adzom Drukpa camp puts the disciples to work on this for a period of four to five years. And Guru Mipham said:

    'This is it! It might be causal ālaya, nevertheless, if you do not do it this way, authentic wisdom will not be born in your mindstream.'

    Meaning that this is the method for placement of the mind! This method must be used and then, because of it, wisdom that is the result of the method can be realized."

    On the outset, resting in clarity (with a constantly mindful and attentive ease) is a necessary prerequisite for definitive flashes of vidyā to occur. Even after recognition the view must be maintained, otherwise karmic propensities will cause distraction and deviation to arise in one's condition, though with time they will decrease as Dudjom Rinpoche explains:

    "When you continually familiarize yourself with this over a long period of time, devotion or some other suitable catalyst will at some point cause these spiritual experiences to overflow into realization, and you will vividly see naked vidyā, as if a veil were instantly lifted from your head. You will become utterly free and spacious. This is called 'the supreme seeing that does not see anything.' Thereafter, thoughts arise as meditation; mental stillness and movement are simultaneously liberated. Moreover, at first, recognition of thoughts liberates them, like meeting someone familiar. In the middle period, thoughts are liberated by themselves, like a snake’s knot uncoiling. Finally, thoughts are liberated without benefit or harm, like a thief entering an empty house. These three ways of liberation will occur gradually."

    And,

    "The mere recognition of vidyā will not liberate you. Throughout your lives from beginningless time, you have been enveloped in false beliefs and deluded habits. From then till now you have spent every moment as a miserable, pathetic slave of your thoughts! And when you die, it’s not at all certain where you will go. You will follow your karma, and you will have to suffer. This is the reason why you must meditate, continuously preserving the sate of vidyā you have been introduced to. The omniscient Longchenpa has said, 'You may recognize your own nature, but if you do not meditate and get used to it, you will be like a baby left on a battlefield: you’ll be carried off by the enemy, the hostile army of your own thoughts!' In general terms, meditation means becoming famiIiar with the state of resting in the primordial uncontrived nature, through being spontaneously, naturally, constantly mindful. It means getting used to leaving the state of vidyā alone, divested of all distraction and clinging."
    December 27, 2013 at 7:06am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson The key is the experience that your "mind's nature" has never been defiled, nor conditioned. This can be done in simple guided vipassana. Its like reflections in a mirror... they have no effect upon the nature of the glass. Samsara has no effect on one's changeless presence of awareness. Seeing the empty and true nature of the alaya or sem is rigpa. Nothing needs to be removed.
    December 27, 2013 at 7:22am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Also, for the record, I never said the dharmakāya is subject to instability or defilement.
    December 27, 2013 at 7:42am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Yes there is the relative nature of mind, which is mere clarity i.e. the changeless presence of awareness, and then there is the ultimate nature of mind [sems nyid], which is the recognition of the non-arising of that clarity, i.e. the non-arising of mind.

    The former is the cognizant substratum which abides untouched by any arising appearances, the latter is the emptiness of the substratum, where appearances are unmediated and self-liberate [rang grol].
    December 27, 2013 at 7:45am · Unlike · 4
    Soh Hi Malcolm Smith can you elaborate on what you mean by coarse obscurations?
    December 27, 2013 at 8:34am · Like
    Malcolm Smith Obscurations of affliction, obscurations of knowledge i.e. kleśa-avarana and jñeya-avarana
    December 27, 2013 at 8:39am · Unlike · 2
    John Tan Hi Jax, sincerely is there any need to understand emptiness and non-arising at all if there is a perfect Mirror unaffected by its reflections?
    December 27, 2013 at 8:48am · Unlike · 5
    Jackson Peterson John Tan, there is no "mirror", but our intrinsic Dharmakaya "Knowingness" is the changeless aspect that is recognized in moments of "rang jyung yeshe" as self-arising primordial wisdom. Not only is this "ye na shes pa" or primordial wisdom consciousness" unconditioned and defect free, but it only sees the empty nature of itself and its holographic luminous display. It does not need training in realizing emptiness. As the tsal and rolpa energies arise as the display of the five lights, one of those lights is the "mirror-like wisdom" consciousness, it can recognize its essential Dharmakaya Basis (Zhi) or not. If it does recognize then its the Buddha Vairocana. If it doesn't recognize then it becomes a John Tan or Jackson "seeking to recognize". Lol..

    What's missing in this conversation completely is the acknowledgment by anyone that there exists an aspect of our self-nature as a continuum of consciousness that is already perfect, already unconditioned and always free of suffering. It's already perfected and changeless. It is what is "knowing" within all experience. The problem is that our minds are still identifying with mental and energetic constructions and projections. The actual Nature of Mind is an empty cognizance that is always present as our only sentience. It's what "just sees when seeing" and "just hears when hearing". It "just knows when knowing". It's always in this 100% pure condition. It has no karma. It has no name. By turning the light of our current consciousness around to look back at that same "knowing clear light", the mind will recognize its True Nature as the Clear Light Dharmakaya Knowingness, the ever present nirvanic mind of a Buddha.
    December 27, 2013 at 6:38pm · Like · 1
    John Ahn Hey Kyle Dixon, you wrote "this is why the nature of mind is not equivalent to primordial wisdom, because the nature of mind is endowed with traces which must be exhausted."

    Just to clarify, primordial wisdom being uncreated and natural forming emptiness, the nature of mind is also of this primordial nature. Yet primordial wisdom is not the nature of mind because the mind can become defiled due to non-recognition?

    Yet, ultimately, the nature of mind is the same as primordial wisdom, that is, both are empty, non-arisen, self forming display..?
    December 27, 2013 at 8:17pm · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson No John Ahn, the "nature of mind" is the border-land between rigpa and mind as sem. The "Nature of Mind" sem nyid, is a derivative. An effulgence of Basis Rigpa or Dhramakaya. It's not even truly "primordial wisdom". Yet it is the most essential nature of mind and is not karmic yet is dependent upon rigpa or yeshe. Some writings seem to say "nature of mind" is synonymous with rigpa or primordial wisdom, but that is not correct. However the true essential nature of the Nature of Mind is Dharmakaya rigpa. It's just later in the evolutionary process of consciousness.
    December 27, 2013 at 8:29pm · Like
    Soh jax, in essence you are pointing on the same stuff but the whole of what you are pointing out must be found in transience
    December 27, 2013 at 11:17pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Soh, I think there is a fixation on "transience". Gnosis relative to the Base or Zhi is not transience, its a different order of magnitude and timeless dimension that fits into no conceptual categories such as "transience". Transience is its derivative.
    December 27, 2013 at 11:26pm · Like
    Soh Thusness wrote before in 2009 in dho: " interesting point worth mentioning is about the maps and techniques detailed in Daniel's MCTB (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha). It is a very systematic way of leading one step by step towards the full integration of the transience. It is also the state of "No Mind" in Zen. Paraphrasing from Kenneth, "once we are familiar with the vocabulary, we are effectively talking the same stuff". That said, I think what lacks in the approach of MCTB is an effective way to allow practitioners to have adequate experience of the vividness, realness and presence of Awareness and the full experience of these qualities in the transience. Without which it will not be easy to realize that "the arising and passing sensations are the very awareness itself." A balance is therefore needed, otherwise practitioners may experience equanimity but skew towards dispassion and lack realization."
    December 27, 2013 at 11:42pm · Like · 5
    Soh Essentially the same sentiment as what you wrote and I clearly know what you said. But is it in the absolute or in transience or in both or neither?
    December 27, 2013 at 11:43pm · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon John, the recognition of nature of mind [sems nyid] is what allows the individual to have knowledge [rig pa] of primordial wisdom [ye shes]. But the nature of mind is not primordial wisdom because the nature of mind is associated with mind (in addition to having latent traces) and wisdom has nothing to do with mind. Wisdom is the three kāyas.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:01am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Jax, an unconditioned consciousness would be something closer to Vedanta. The wisdom of the Buddhas is not consciousness, Buddhas do not have consciousness [vijñāna], they have wisdom [jñāna]. Wisdom is the non-arising of the consciousnesses and is therefore free of consciousness.

    In this description by Malcolm, Dzogchen accords with the third example:

    Malcolm wrote:
    It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

    The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:09am · Like · 4
    Amir Mourad "wisdom has nothing to do with mind"

    It may have been better if you had not read or heard anything about the subject at all. Perhaps then, such blind imitation could have been avoided.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:09am · Like
    Amir Mourad It is absolutely important to make a distinction between things as they are perceived by the human mind, and things as they are in themselves. As far as one's true nature is concerned, it knows nothing at all about wisdom. As an experience in a human body - wisdom manifests. As an experience in a human body - it can be called satchitananda, existence,consciousness, bliss. But all of these descriptions are in terms of human experience - and it is the greatest delusion of man to believe that one's fundamental nature is experience-centric.

    Wisdom and ignorance, enlightenment and delusion, suffering and liberation from suffering - all of these belong to the realm of the mind. One's true nature always remains unfathomable even beyond the idea of the unfathomable. To call it "priomordial wisdom" is just another futile and petty attempt of the intellect to try and force this into the boundaries of one's knowledge. If you try to force this into the boundaries of your knowledge - only thing is certain to happen. You will hallucinate.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:14am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Amir, I'm not sure what you mean, but even in an etymological sense; wisdom [jñāna] and consciousness [vijñāna] i.e. mind, are antonymous.

    This passage from the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa sūtra, Malcolm shared recently defines their relationship well:

    "If it is asked what is consciousness [vijñāna] and what is wisdom [jñāna], so called 'consciousness' are the four abodes of consciousness. If it is asked what four, it is as follows: consciousness approaches matter, approaches sensation, approaches perception [samjñā] and approaches formations and abides. This is called 'consciousness'. If it is asked what is wisdom, whatever throughly knows the aggregate of consciousness in the four aggregates, this is called 'wisdom'. Moreover, consciousness is the earth element consciousness, the water element, the fire element and air element consciousness. This is called 'consciousness'. Whatever knows the consciousness that abides in these four elements to be inseparable with the dharmadhātu, this is called 'wisdom'."
    December 28, 2013 at 12:26am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Amir, if you are pointing out that these are all conventional designations as delineated by one's mind, then yes I wholeheartedly agree.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:30am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Allow me to enter the fray as well!

    Yes, Amir.

    The key for me personally is deep understanding of what boundaries, limits, definitions, delineation, demarcation, borders, bonds, confines, edges, perimeters, centres, circumferences, extents, frames, restrictions, constraints, marks, signification, connotation, interpretation, meaning, context, measurement, perception, etc. point to.

    The arch-root of empirical knowledge (experience)—which is synonymous with the above—is ignorance, sectioning-off, blindness.

    Bodhicitta, Buddha, "is", dualistically speaking, the "absence" of such ignorance.

    Paraphrasing (of the liberated mind): "That by which he is measured/limited, that for him is not there."

    Doctrinally speaking, this is the "absence of extremes", but the word "extremes" is too extreme.

    On one hand, there is no need for a system or vehicle of salvation, liberation, enlightenment. On the other, we find ourselves in a catch-22 where we do want to "progress" towards liberation.

    Not a single system or doctrine captures Buddha. Not a single thought or concept is ever close or accurate. The Dzogchen precepts are as stupid and missing-the-point as any other set of words. They are not closer to the truth, no matter the fervor with which that may be asserted.

    Thought, concept and language are expressions of ignore-ance. They measure the measureless, quantify the unquantified, limit the limitless. Concepts are not evil—it's just that they are the vehicle with which we narrow, confine, constrict and bind what is unconstricted, unbound. This is exactly what gives us the (conceptual) status of "sentient beings", which is (conceptually) opposed to "Buddha".
    December 28, 2013 at 4:50am · Edited · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle I like that Stian
    December 28, 2013 at 12:53am · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle... we have been through this infinite times! The Tibetan word I use for "consciousness" is "shes pa", which can either be "primordial consciousness" like "ye na shes pa" or "Kunzhi nampar shes pa" like the afflicted consciousness of the fifth skandha and Alaya Vijnanna. Shes pa is neutral consciousness. Rigpa is a "shes pa" but not a "vijnanna" but rather a "jnana".. Rigpa shes pa, would be "unconditioned" because it is the wisdom shes pa of the Dharmakaya, as "ye shes pa". Your post was unnecessary as usual with this same topic of "consciousness". You know I understand the subtleties regarding these words.
    December 28, 2013 at 1:10am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Consciousness is rnam shes and represents the collection of eight. Shes pa is mere knowing. Ye shes is wisdom and has nothing to do with consciousness.
    December 28, 2013 at 1:13am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Gee Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, I disagree. Words and concepts can be the expression of pure wisdom. These wisdom words can "enlighten a mind",, especially the Dzogchen wisdom words. The Buddha spoke these wisdom words. Longchenpa has written from this wisdom state and just reading his words can bring the mind into rigpa. However the problem with Amir is that he has different meanings for the same words we are using. Like words such as "consciousness" and "mind" that can be problematic for Buddhists but not others. We have to define our nomenclature carefully or we miss the opportunity to connect... no?
    December 28, 2013 at 1:18am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Look at it this way; shes pa as mere knowing, when in contact with an object becomes consciousness [rnam shes]. Shes pa which knows its nature i.e. primordial wisdom [ye shes] is shes rab [prajñā] i.e. rig pa [vidyā].

    Consciousness is dualistic perception which arises via dependent origination and is the antithesis of wisdom. If you refer to wisdom as 'consciousness' you are only going to complicate your exposition and confuse people.
    December 28, 2013 at 1:22am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Soh wrote:" Essentially the same sentiment as what you wrote and I clearly know what you said. But is it in the absolute or in transience or in both or neither?" I am saying there is a depth to transcience a kind of quantum quality that is usually not known when there is "just the seen" etc. There is depth of Absolute-like transparency that pervades the total transient field of experience. Its only known in "rigpa", but can't be explained adequately otherwise. John Tan knows about this. But I think he is including it in the category of "transience". But the category of "transience" is just another imputation that's not adequate regarding the changeless quality of the Absoute Basis, that is empty, without substance, identical to transience, but also not identical to transience, both and neither all at the same time. Its the co-emergent quantum transparency that is a pure wisdom as everything that can't be so neatly contained by the label "transience". I also experienced this very clearly during a kundalini transformation as well in all moments of "rigpa". The mystics call it "Gnosis".
    December 28, 2013 at 1:33am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon, you are correct... but I choose a more neutral languaging due to my various audiences most of which have minimal Buddhist knowledge. Consciousness or awareness is easily understood. So now you know... But not like I haven't explained this to you before...
    December 28, 2013 at 1:36am · Like · 1
    Elena Nezhinsky I like "neutral language"
    December 28, 2013 at 1:47am · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle I do too Elena , without it I would've kept looking out there
    December 28, 2013 at 1:53am · Like · 2
    Elena Nezhinsky The biggest gift a teacher can give to others is to bring dharma in a language they can be best benefitted from. Teacher assimilates knowledge and bring it in a most effective way. Sometimes it means using simple wordily language. Master knows right way to bring knowledge forth.
    December 28, 2013 at 2:28am · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle I am glad that I get to personally thank you Elena. I feel whole again, even in accepting my dark side
    December 28, 2013 at 2:30am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle ( but there's no one to have any dark side just to make that clear). guilt extinguished
    December 28, 2013 at 2:33am · Like
    John Ahn Kyle Dixon wrote: "John, the recognition of nature of mind [sems nyid] is what allows the individual to have knowledge [rig pa] of primordial wisdom [ye shes]. But the nature of mind is not primordial wisdom because the nature of mind is associated with mind (in addition to having latent traces) and wisdom has nothing to do with mind. Wisdom is the three kāyas."

    Is what is referred to as nature of mind in your vocabulary same as clarity? As in, the knowing capacity of our experience?
    December 28, 2013 at 2:38am · Like · 1
    John Ahn If so, isn't nature of mind also an expression of primordial wisdom, and in with recognition, the mind liberates into the three kayas?
    December 28, 2013 at 2:42am · Edited · Like
    Elena Nezhinsky Much love Stephanie
    December 28, 2013 at 2:42am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon John, it is nondual clarity and emptiness i.e. the emptiness of clarity i.e. the recognition that clarity is unborn and non-arisen.
    December 28, 2013 at 2:48am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon With that recognition the kāyas are recognized, though that knowledge is immature and must be refined. In the end when the nature of mind is purified of traces there is unobscured Buddha mind [dharmakāya].
    December 28, 2013 at 2:52am · Like · 3
    Stuffs RedTurtle Kyle I'm having a hard time with this. In conventional terms I take this path as pure truth, even if there in truth is no one to cause suffering, following thoughts of desire still prove destructive, but if we as people are without free will, how can we choose between right and wrong? And what if anything is making these choices?
    December 28, 2013 at 2:58am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Nihilism is too dead for me
    December 28, 2013 at 3:01am · Like · 1
    John Ahn Hey Kyle, woud you say that the dharmakaya is total expression of primordial wisdom without obscurations?
    December 28, 2013 at 3:10am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Exactly what I was asking... Yes, much nicer package though John
    December 28, 2013 at 3:13am · Like
    John Ahn I guess it gets a bit tricky with words because primordial wisdom's display both encompasses samsara as well as nirvana, that is, whether the mind recognizes or not does not matter to primordial wisdom. So I guess dharmakaya is pointing to when a person sees his own face.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:24am · Edited · Like · 2
    John Ahn Hmm I think I see parallels to taoist writings pointing to naturalness, as thusness sometimes inserts into his writings.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:22am · Edited · Like · 1
    John Ahn Since we often put emphasis on emptiness being the nature of things, not an ontological ground, when I read primordial wisdom, I think, "nature of reality/experience."
    December 28, 2013 at 3:31am · Edited · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle John, I get so little chance to speak with other Buddhists: this realm we see and feel normally is samsara, and nirvana more mental equilibrium rather than a physical state correct?
    December 28, 2013 at 3:26am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Stephanie Marie, there is no "choosing" and not a "chooser", the conditioning with the strongest dynamic becomes the choice, then the conscious mind claims that subconscious choice as its own.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:29am · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle Ah! Thank you Jackson!!!!
    December 28, 2013 at 3:30am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Now I understand karma,
    How is it then that people claim to have gone beyond thier karma?
    December 28, 2013 at 3:32am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Stephanie Marie, our concepts and imputations about actual sensory physical experience is samsara. What simply appears free of mental evaluation and labeling is nirvana.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:32am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Oh, so I have found nirvana, wow
    December 28, 2013 at 3:32am · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle Brief glimpse into the ocean, but it has been seen
    December 28, 2013 at 3:33am · Like
    Jackson Peterson There is no person to go beyond their karma. There exist only thoughts about a person going beyond their karma.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:33am · Like · 1
    John Ahn Hey Stephanie Marie, I am not sure myself the extent of what is called samsara and nirvana. I keep it simply, that samsara is suffering, and nirvana is total eradication of that. It can get complex into talking about the different effects of samsara, such as birth is realms, and the effects of nirvana one of which you pointed out is equilibrium. But I like to just focus on the cause of both, which is ignorance or knowledge.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:35am · Like · 3
    Stuffs RedTurtle I thought so, thank you Jackson
    December 28, 2013 at 3:35am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Samsara is: thoughts and concepts. Nothing more... Nothing less! Seeing the emptiness of all thoughts and concepts is nirvana.
    December 28, 2013 at 3:59am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Stephanie, relatively we have volition, but it is not 'free will' in the sense of an independent agent which is making choices. Nor is it predetermined by an independent outside force. In the relative sense, occurrences unfold in accordance with cause and condition, and ultimately they are empty.

    http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/group.html_1909906809.html
    Details of Karma for Understanding Free Will versus Determinism (audio + transcript)
    www.berzinarchives.com
    Home > Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism > Level 4: Deepening the Understanding o...See More
    December 28, 2013 at 4:01am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
    Stuffs RedTurtle Thank you very much Kyle Dixon -^-
    December 28, 2013 at 4:02am · Like
    Kyle Dixon John, completely unobscured wisdom would be the three kāyas.
    December 28, 2013 at 4:04am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon John, you can think of primordial wisdom as the fact that phenomena is empty by nature, and therefore phenomena have been non-arisen since beginningless time. When this is recognized it is seen that non-arisen phenomena have been in a state of perfection from the very beginning, though non-arisen means a beginning is inapplicable as well.
    December 28, 2013 at 4:13am · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon What appears in suspension of mental evaluation is not nirvana unless there is discernment present that apperceives dharmatā i.e. the emptiness of said appearances.

    In the absence of that discernment, delusion stays in tact whether mental evaluation is suspended or is active.
    December 28, 2013 at 4:18am · Like · 4
    Stuffs RedTurtle That explains the yo yo of going back and fourth between apprehending emptiness and the illusion of I awesome Kyle thank you for your wisdom
    December 28, 2013 at 4:20am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Wonderful Stephanie!

    But do not get heedless. Can you "do" it again? If not, why not? Endeavor to understand the conditions, causes and effects surrounding your breakthrough.

    "Ocean" suggest two things to me:

    1) This was an authentic breakthrough
    2) It was not necessarily complete

    While it may be that "ocean" is your poetic attempt to describe what happened, it may also indicate that your breakthrough was not completely, thoroughly referenceless freedom, Unbinding. Only you may inquiry into your breakthrough to discern this.
    December 28, 2013 at 4:32am · Edited · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle wrote:
    > you can think of primordial wisdom as the fact that phenomena is empty by nature, and therefore phenomena have been non-arisen since beginningless time.

    I detect something here, and I interpret that Amir is as well.

    Phenomena are not actually non-arisen. They are also not actually empty. "Primordial wisdom" does not actually stand in contrast to anything, like say, "ignorance".

    The reverse, implicitly implied in my language, also does not apply.

    I don't know how else to express this.
    December 28, 2013 at 4:29am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Jackson, I don't see how one can reconcile the comment where you say you disagree with me and the comment where you say "Samsara is: thoughts and concepts".
    December 28, 2013 at 4:32am · Edited · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle Wow Stian I am floored!!! Thank you for your understanding!!! I've only touched the stream, which I keep saying. All else has only led to confusion. Thank you sir!!!! I will use caution absolutely!
    December 28, 2013 at 4:33am · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Thank you, Stephanie! Me too. Just sharing notes
    December 28, 2013 at 4:35am · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle wrote:
    > What appears in suspension of mental evaluation is not nirvana unless there is discernment present that apperceives dharmatā i.e. the emptiness of said appearances.

    Hey Kyle. Maybe I'm not quite understanding you, because what you wrote here is not quite the way I formulate things. But:

    The wisdom talked about does not need the presence of discernment, because this so-called discernment is never apart, never separate from wisdom.

    In my scheme of things, one does not take "suspension of mental evaluation" and then add to it the 'ingredient' of discernment.

    The wisdom talked about comes already 'endowed' with such discernment (of emptiness) (which, in the spirit of my last comment to you, is not an *actual* discernment of emptiness). At least that is my experience.

    This kinda feels like splitting words. I'm just checking to see if we share in this understanding
    December 28, 2013 at 4:49am · Edited · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Stian, phenomena are non-arisen by nature, but that is simply a way to communicate what the dharma seeks to reveal. From the ultimate perspective 'non-arising' has no referent and this is why emptiness is also empty.

    It's very easy to jump to an ultimate stance where the validity of everything is revoked. However conveying that standpoint is only helpful in context, and if we asserted it all the time there would be nothing to discuss.

    In the context of how these designations are applied, primordial wisdom functions in contrast to ignorance, in that ignorance is a lack of knowledge of primordial wisdom.

    I've never stated that any of these things 'actually' or inherently carry any implications. The system is a means, and the system accounts for the discrepancies you are pointing out efficiently and effectively.
    December 28, 2013 at 4:53am · Like · 7
    Stuffs RedTurtle Beautiful I'm so glad I entered this thread, thank you so much everyone, Stian, Kyle, and Jackson
    December 28, 2013 at 4:55am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Super, Kyle!
    December 28, 2013 at 4:57am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Stian, if there is no recognition of wisdom present i.e. no discernment, then wisdom cannot be known.

    'Suspension of mental evaluation' is irrelevant to this equation, it simply came up in the discussion.

    Wisdom is emptiness. Discernment of wisdom is the path of nirvana. Ignorance of wisdom is the cause of samsara.

    Recognition of wisdom does entail a direct cognition of emptiness, which is known as plain as day.
    December 28, 2013 at 5:14am · Edited · Like · 4
    Stuffs RedTurtle Thank you for the longchenpa teachings
    December 28, 2013 at 5:16am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Right. The issue, it seems to me, was that I was expecting a more "ultimate" treatment of this.

    For example:

    > If there is no recognition of wisdom present i.e. no discernment, then wisdom cannot be known.

    From wisdom's side there is no recognition, no discernment, no wisdom, no knowing, no emptiness—and no negation, either.

    Not only does linguistic structure fall apart, but the causal order does too; so discernment does not lead to recognition, recognition does not lead to wisdom, for example.
    ___

    Seems to me we agree. It was just my passing preference-in-context to give expression to a more ultimate "point of view" (haha!).
    December 28, 2013 at 5:29am · Edited · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Right, from the perspective of primordial wisdom it's all unreal. However the condition of the individual is not equivalent to primordial wisdom until buddhahood.
    December 28, 2013 at 5:36am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon If the ultimate view is adopted preemptively (or unskillfully) and is allowed to be grasped at by the mind, then acceptance and rejection arise and a deviation called 'allowing the view to overtake the conduct' occurs. Which is nihilism and is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot. So the paradox must be related to skillfully, this is why the qualified guru is an indispensable aspect of the teachings.
    December 28, 2013 at 5:41am · Like · 5
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I see why that may be a part of a system of teachings. Buddha is not constrained or excluded by such well-intentioned precaution, though. (And it's not like I think you disagree with that! )
    December 28, 2013 at 5:46am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon A Buddha is free of the need for a system of teachings, those who are traversing the path however, are not.

    The mind which solely promotes an ultimate perspective (at the expense of the relative) has compromised everything.
    December 28, 2013 at 5:51am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Hehe, I think we could ping-pong like this forever.

    As you may have noticed I have a personal predilection for what we're here calling "an ultimate perspective"—to some extent that may be unskillful, which you commented.

    Saying that (paraphrased) "those who are traversing the path need a system of teachings", serves a genuine, practical purpose, I also think that saying the opposite (that Buddha is never not), also serves a genuine, practical purpose—and does not necessarily compromise the path. (I'm no teacher—just basing this on my own path.)

    My point is really, the "ultimate perspective" is a relative perspective. It does not capture, convey or evoke in any accurate way or sense Unbinding.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:21am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Wisdom is 'never not' i.e. the emptiness of dharmas is not undone by ignorance, because ignorance and karmic propensity are the father and mother of the delusory dharmas which constitute samsara. Therefore samsara is ignorance itself. Ignorance of what? Ignorance of wisdom.

    A Buddha is free of ignorance, and has exhausted karmic propensities. A Buddha never moves from wisdom. A sentient being also never moves from wisdom, however they are ignorant of wisdom and therefore afflictive proliferation of karmic propensities obstruct wisdom.

    Sentient beings are truly Buddhas, but they are wrought with affliction and so they are ignorant of wisdom (their buddhanature). When they discover wisdom, and dispel the karmic habituation which perpetuates delusion, then they will be Buddhas.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:32am · Edited · Like · 5
    Jackson Peterson Stian Gudmundsen Høiland samsara is a belief in fictional words and concepts. Samsara is only those believed concepts. But concepts and words can also be a catalyst for an effect that causes an insight. But when we examine the nature of samsara, we can only find words and concepts that represent fiction, not an entity called samsara other than those words and concepts.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:27am · Like · 1
    Justin Struble "In the basis (Tibetan: གཞི, Wylie: gzhi) there were neutral awarenesses (sh shes pa lung ma bstan) that did not recognize themselves. (Dzogchen texts actually do not distinguish whether this neutral awareness is one or multiple.) This non-recognition was the innate ignorance. Due to traces of action and affliction from a previous universe, the basis became stirred and the Five Pure Lights shone out. When a neutral awareness recognized the lights as its own display, that was Samantabhadra (immediate liberation without the performance of virtue). Other neutral awarenesses did not recognize the lights as their own display, and thus imputed “other” onto the lights. This imputation of “self” and “other” was the imputing ignorance. This ignorance started sentient beings and samsara (even without non-virtue having been committed)."

    "Kyle Dixon: John, completely unobscured wisdom would be the three kāyas."

    "Jackson Peterson: The key is the experience that your "mind's nature" has never been defiled, nor conditioned. This can be done in simple guided vipassana. Its like reflections in a mirror... they have no effect upon the nature of the glass. Samsara has no effect on one's changeless presence of awareness."

    When the kilesas / skandhas are totally extinguished in fruition / realization, when there is unobscured wisdom, and the kayas are realized, an inseparable aspect of this realization is the realization that the kayas are "always already the case" .. In other words our wisdom mind is stainless, has never been defiled, our wisdom mind has never fluctuated or been perturbed, it is primordially unobstructed, primordially unshakeable, primordially unmove-able ... it is recognized that all aberrant, distorted perceptions were merely misapprehensions of the display of our own wisdom mind.

    That all such aberrant perceptions, were since beginningless time merely the kayas / the display of our own wisdom mind, misapprehended and thereby distorted as dualistic phenomena, the five poisons, the kilesas / skandhas ...

    There is a sort of spontaneous mapping whereby wisdom apprehends and understands completely how every misapprehended perception was in actuality the kayas, distorted through the lense of delusion / ignorance. With this apprehension, ignorance, self view, dualistic view, are all smashed and anatta / two fold emptiness / rigpa fully dawns.

    In this way one recognizes that our very own wisdom mind; the kayas are the basis of both samsara ( when misapprehended and distorted ) and nirvana ( when fully apprehended as the wisdom of the unobstructed kayas ).

    From the ultimate perspective of primordial wisdom, there was never a femtosecond deviation from the kayas. The entire aberration / misapprehension was illusory. From the relative perspective, there is the process of phenomena self liberating until finally reaching full extinction / exhaustion.

    The gradual process / ripening is merely the skillful display of wisdom mind, the realization / attainment / awakening display.

    Both perspectives are useful and skillful. The ultimate perspective dissolves forms of extreme view as an antidote in the context of nihilistic and eternalistic delusions.

    The relative skillful means laying out the gradual path serves to guide sentient beings in so far as they are working within the context of distorted perceptions, and as an antidote to apathy / not practicing the path.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:28am · Edited · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon The 'path' in Dzogchen is the gradual exhaustion of karmic traces. The basis is only the basis because it is unrecognized. Once the basis is recognized it becomes the path. When traces are exhausted the path becomes the result. The basis, path and result never leave vidyā, and are unreal from the standpoint of wisdom. However they unfold for the Dzogchenpa and should be understood properly in that sense.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:39am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon The 'spontaneous mapping' is called prajñāpāramitā.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:42am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon I still disagree with Jackson's literal interpretation of the mirror metaphor which takes the surface of the mirror to be an unchanging purity in relation to appearances. This is not how Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche uses this metaphor. He instead uses the mirror's capacity to reflect, which is nothing tangible, coarse or apparent, but is only known by the appearance of the reflections themselves.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:47am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland That "capacity" would be sems nyid, cittata, Mind-as-such (or wisdom as you and many others like to translate it), correct?
    December 28, 2013 at 6:50am · Edited · Like
    Justin Struble empty, transparent, luminous sacred space, suffused with awareness / knowing... clear light of awareness .. rigpa. this luminous, transparent, primordially free unobstructedness ... extremely subtle yet this is apparent whether there are appearances or appearances are totally extinguished.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:51am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Nice Justin Struble! My general comment is that we make this into an intellectual fairy tale. The simplicity is: a dream-like neutral consciousness arose as the tsal and rolpa of the basis. We call that a "sentient being". But it is just a play of primordial energy. There is no person or being there. That neutral consciousness can always dissolve suddenly back into the Basis or Zhi either permanently or intermittently until fully dissolved. The sentient aspect that "recognizes" its origin IS the Wisdom awareness of the Basis that is never absent. The mind orients towards that primordial awareness through practice or pointing out and then that consciousness collapses back into the Basis. The primordial awareness recognizes itself within deluded mind, like seeing your face in a mirror. The wisdom is always arising and only needs to be allowed to manifest in consciousness. Hence relaxation and having nothing in mind. That's the basis of self-liberation.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:53am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon, the mirror is an analogy. However the wisdom of the "mirror-like wisdom" does have that quality of all appearances appearing within it like reflections. But that's not true of the Dharmakaya.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:56am · Like
    Kyle Dixon That wiki entry which sort of throws together bits and pieces of Malcolm's various explanations of the basis is a bit extraneous.

    Malcolm has said none of the cosmogony is relevant unless one is involved with certain upadesha practices in a serious way.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:56am · Like
    Din Robinson "The primordial awareness recognizes itself within deluded mind, like seeing your face in a mirror."

    I really like this!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:57am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Justin, also those who's ignorance is fully removed in the moment of recognition giving way to two-fold emptiness are few and far between. As in; there hasn't been an individual like that for centuries.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:32am · Like · 2
    Din Robinson how the heck can you know that Kyle?
    December 28, 2013 at 7:33am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Stian, sems nyid is not wisdom [ye shes], but is what reveals wisdom.

    Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's metaphor (implementing the capacity of the mirror) is simply meant to convey the nature of one's experience from the standpoint of the definitive view.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:40am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson The mirror, as the melong, is the most important symbol used in Dzogchen Direct Introduction. It is pointed out that your primordial nature is like a mirror in that all reflections, your own energies, appear within awareness but don't condition the mirror-like awareness. Our awareness nature is primordially pure, ever free of defect, just as the most horrible reflections don't condition the mirror. Even samsara is just a dream like reflection appearing in the Absolute Nature. You are only ever that pure Absolute Buddha Nature as Pure Awareness. Norbu pointed this out to me using this analogy as I explained.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:50am · Edited · Like · 2
    Justin Struble Yes, another good analogy is like a clear, transparent crystal that assumes the color of an object placed before it, without affecting it's transparent crystal clarity.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:59am · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon Not trying to be a party pooper but the melong description too is bordering on symbolic introduction. I'm all for you giving instruction like that in your own groups but lets not do that here please.

    Appreciate your enthusiasm, really do. There's really only two topics which I'd like to avoid; (i) pointing out instruction or description, and (ii) upadesha instruction or description (mainly those which implement the energies).

    Other than that, it's all good!
    December 28, 2013 at 8:05am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Norbu explains the mirror symbol:

    "And by way of an example, this voidness is said to be like
    the fundamental purity and clarity 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 is 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.
    Although voidness in the sense explained above is the
    essential underlying condition of all phenomena, phenomena—
    whether mental events or 'real' objects experienced as
    something external—continue to manifest. Just as reflections,
    even though they are empty, keep appearing in a mirror, things
    continue to exist and thoughts keep arising."

    The master may use a physical mirror in order to show that,
    no matter whether what is reflected is good or bad, beautiful or
    ugly, the capacity to reflect inherent to the mirror functions as
    soon as an object is put in front of it. Then he will explain that
    the same happens with what is termed 'natuje of mind', which is
    discovered in non-dual contemplation. Any thought or event may
    arise, but the nature of mind will not be conditioned by it and
    will not enter into judgment: it will simply reflect what arises,
    just as a mirror does, according to its own nature.
    So the Zhi, the Base, the fundamental condition of the
    individual and of existence, is in essence void, and yet its Nature
    is nevertheless to manifest. How it manifests is as Energy, and
    by way of example, this Energy is compared to the reflections
    that arise in a mirror. The master may once again show a mirror
    to the disciple and explain how the reflections that arise in it
    are the energy of the mirror's own inherent nature manifesting
    visibly.
    Now, although in order to explain the Base we may artificially
    separate its Essence, Nature, and Energy, the example of
    the mirror shows that these three aspects are interdependent
    and cannot be separated from each other. In fact, a mirror's
    primordially pure voidness, its clear capacity to reflect and the
    reflections that arise in it are inseparable and are all essential to
    the existence of what is known as a 'mirror'.
    If it were not empty, the mirror would not reflect; if it did not
    have a clear capacity to reflect, how could it manifest reflections?
    And if it could not manifest reflections, how could we say it
    was a mirror? The same is true of the three aspects of the Base:
    Essence, Nature, and Energy are inseparable."

    "A mirror has neither form nor color. Yet when a red cloth
    is placed in front of it, the mirror seems red, and with a green
    cloth in front of it, it seems green, and so on. Thus, although a
    mirror's voidness is essentially infinite and formless, the mirror
    Dang may fill itself with any content. The same happens with the
    individual's energy: although at the Dang level it is essentially
    infinite and formless, it is clear that it has the capacity to adopt
    any form."

    Excerpt from Norbu's "The Crystal and the Way of Light"
    December 28, 2013 at 8:10am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Ok no more introduction analogies guys, thanks! Other than that carry on!
    December 28, 2013 at 8:12am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon, if you object to quoting Norbu from his broadly published book and a book he very much wishes new people to read, I can say that your attitude is weird beyond any possible understanding. This is the information that Norbu wants everyone to have... because it can free them!
    December 28, 2013 at 8:21am · Like · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland So sems nyid, nature of mind or Mind-as-such, is the power (capacity) to project individual (localized) phenomenological, empirical subjectivity.

    Wave-function collapse, in other words

    Or like a (dispersive) prism:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/.../3b/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon.png
    December 28, 2013 at 8:33am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    Jackson Peterson No, Stian, "the Nature of Mind" is a border consciousness state between rigpa and mind. Its our sentience that has rigpa on the back end and sem or dualistic mind on the front end... so to speak. The nature of mind is a luminous clarity, the essence of our consciousness, but not rigpa itself as it hasn't fully recognized its Dharmakaya Nature. Many masters consider it the same as rigpa and yeshe, and they aren't wrong in their usage.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:32am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Just letting you all know, Kyle deleted my post explaining the energy physiology from Yang Ti and Thogal. He doesn't think you should have access to that stuff. What a crock of sh*t!
    December 28, 2013 at 8:36am · Edited · Like
    Kyle Dixon Jax, that's all well and good, I'm trying to be fair to everyone.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:35am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Hehe, he's free to do that as admin on this group. You have your groups to share that stuff
    December 28, 2013 at 8:35am · Like
    Jackson Peterson You prefer to be censored like little children? lol..
    December 28, 2013 at 8:35am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Of course not. There are other ways, though, like your groups. Be like water!
    December 28, 2013 at 8:36am · Like
    Din Robinson well, i've seen this situation repeated so many times on so many boards, but i don't think anyone is right and no one is wrong, just different priorities
    December 28, 2013 at 8:37am · Edited · Like
    Justin Struble Censorship is always wrong imo. We are all adults here. It is a prime example of conceit to presume one knows what information is suitable for others.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:38am · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson lol... unbelievable! Kyle the Pope, deciding what is proper catholic "dogma" or not for the group.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:38am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Clarity as condition for phenomena... Clarity as in the very power of observation? Acting as condition for actualisation of (a) reality? Sounds insanely much like wave-function collapse to me
    December 28, 2013 at 8:39am · Edited · Like
    Din Robinson the fact is we all have unique ways of seeing everything, just like no two snowflakes are alike
    December 28, 2013 at 8:39am · Like
    Jackson Peterson I don't think he liked the Norbu Mirror analogy quote because it made him look stupid... he he... not because of any other reason.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:39am · Like
    Jackson Peterson I look at it that way too Stian... a wave collapse... All Reality is information in "super-position".
    December 28, 2013 at 8:41am · Like · 1
    Justin Struble Prajnaparamita (Perfecton of Wisdom) sutras and early Madhyamaka treatises declared all phenomena to be empty of substantial, independent existence (svabhavasunya), hence illusory. When bodhisattvas attain direct knowledge of that truth, they realize that all things in their intrinsice emptiness have always been in nirvanic peace, that samsara is undivided from nirvana. Through such wisdom, the bodhisattva learns to embody the freedom and power of nirvana while continuing to act skillfully within samsara for the sake of others. When this bodhisattva path of wisdom and skillful means is fully accomplished, its simultaneous participation in samsara and nirvana becomes the essential realization of buddhahood. This is referred in Yogacara and later Madhyamka treatises as a buddha’s “unrestricted nirvana” (apratisthita-nirvana), unrestricted because it is bound neither to samsara nor to a merely quiescent nirvana, but possessed of limitless and spontaneous activity, all-pervasive and eternal, radiating its power to beings throughout all existence, drawing them toward enlightenment (Makransky pp. 85-87).

    In the Perfection of Wisdom sutras, the term dharmata (literally “thinghood”) refers to the real nature of things, undivided in their emptiness yet diverse in their appearance. In treatises that formalized the concept of the buddhas’ unrestricted nirvana, the dharmata of all things as the limitless field of the buddhas’ enlightened knowledge and power came to be referred to as dharmakaya, now meaning the buddhas’ “embodiment of dharmata” (of ultimate reality) (Makransky pp. 34-37, 199-201). Dharmakaya, as the non-dual awareness of the emptiness of all things is undifferentiated among buddhas, yet serves as the basis for diverse manifestations. It is therefore also etymologized as the undivided basis (kaya) of all the buddha qualities (dharmas). A synonym for it in such treatises was svabhavikakaya, meaning the buddhas’ embodiment (kaya) of the intrinsic nature (svabhava) of things.

    The celestial sambhogakaya buddhas, then, represent the primary manifestation of dharmakaya, perfectly embodying the non-duality of appearance (rupa) and emptiness (dharma). For this reason, the sensory phenomena of sambhogakaya pure fields -- gentle breezes, flowing rivers, even the birds -- continually disclose the nirvanic nature of things to the bodhisattva assemblies arrayed there.

    But formulators of the buddhas’ unrestricted nirvana, as noted above, understood the dharmakaya’s salvific activity to radiate to beings of all realms, not just to those in pure buddha fields. Such all-pervasive buddha activity is carried out by innumerable manifestations within the empty, illusory, worlds of beings. In Yogacara and later Madhyamaka treatises, the limitlessly diverse ways that buddhahood was said to manifest in Mahayana scriptures came to be classified under the term nirmanakaya, meaning buddhahood embodied (kaya) in diverse, illusory manifestations (nirmana). As such, nirmanakaya encompasses three broad categories. First, since the world itself in its empty, illusory nature is undivided from nirvana, any aspect of the world has the potential to disclose the essence of buddhahood, to function as nirmanakaya, when a person’s mind becomes pure enough to notice. Secondly, buddhas and advanced bodhisattvas have great power to project illusory replicas and visionary forms to beings (nirmanas) to help guide them toward enlightenment. Such illusory projections further support the disclosure of all things as illusory appearances of empty reality. Thirdly, all sorts of beings who serve to communicate the buddhas’ truths function as agents of buddha activity, hence as nirmanakaya, from supreme human paradigms like Sakyamuni to the innumerable bodhisattvas of Mahayana scriptures who carry out much of the Buddha’s teaching and salvific activity, and who appear in all walks of life and as all types of beings.

    Thus developed the basic Mahayana doctrine of three buddha kayas: dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya which informed the buddhalogies that developed throughout Asia, contributing to the Hua yen, T’ien tai, Chen-yen, Ch’an and Ching t’u traditions of China, thence Korea and Japan, and to all Tibetan Buddhist traditions.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:42am · Like · 4
    Jackson Peterson The collapse occurs when the "I" thought arises in the mind as a self-consciousness within the "mind".
    December 28, 2013 at 8:42am · Like · 1
    Din Robinson Jackson wrote:

    " lol... unbelievable! Kyle the Pope, deciding what is proper catholic "dogma" or not for the group."

    if you treated me that way, i may not let you keep playing in my sandbox!
    December 28, 2013 at 8:42am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Self-consciousness, yes. That is the very definition of "sentient being" as opposed to Buddha.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:45am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson I devoted quite a bit in my Chapter 6 of my book on this quantum collapse into samsara ...
    December 28, 2013 at 8:47am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Jax, it's okay I'd you want to think it's ridiculous and poke fun, but that's how it's been and that is how it will continue.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:48am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Fantastic, Justin! Where is that from?
    December 28, 2013 at 8:50am · Edited · Like · 3
    Stuffs RedTurtle Justin, I was wondering about your last post: I have had dreams where a being came and taught me mantras, like benzeke and I woke the next morning to a healed staph infection, also, before I knew that thoughts did not belong to any person, a Buddha without form in a dream taught me how they travel in a way I can't describe in words other than transfer, which I still only understand as bubbles, that one I can find no literature on. Most recently, in a very lucid dream, I sat with shakyamuni Buddha whom spoke about emptiness and told me matreya would soon make an appearance. Previously I took no stock in this, but I don't know what to make of it, especially finding benzeke is a mantra to medicine Buddha. The first two dreams the being had no form, the last was saffron robed
    December 28, 2013 at 8:53am · Like · 5
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland .
    Bodhicittabhavana (The Cultivation of Enlightened Mind)
    by Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra

    Mind (citta) and mental-function (cetasika), in and of itself, comes into being in three stages.

    42 [First stage:] The accumulation of vestigial-imprints (vasana), derived from the formative impulses (samskara) [of Creation], proliferate [from the first moment onwards] and evolve; when the [compounded] power (prabhava) of that has ripened [i.e., has obtained 'critical intensity']

    43 then Mind-in-itself (cittatva, the essence of citta) manifests forth (abhasa) as subject and object, or in other words as Subjective Being (atmabhava, Tib: lus) and Existence, which nevertheless has no more 'reality' than the life in a pile of bones.

    44 [Second stage:] Identification (lamba) with the activity of the continuum (santana) of evolving imprints (vasana) results in the formation of the 'psychic monad' (manas), experienced as a 'self' (atma), which it is not.

    45 [Third stage:] As a result, the obscuring effect of the impulse-to-come-into-being (samskara) produces a subtle diminution-of-awareness, giving birth to a specific local consciousness.

    http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/texts/cultivation-of-enlightened-mind.htm
    ___

    Samskara = Saṅkhāra. Could be translated, in a generic sense, as volitionality.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:56am · Edited · Like · 1
    Justin Struble Stian; Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet By John J. Makransky
    December 28, 2013 at 8:54am · Like · 1
    Justin Struble Stephanie, I have had many lucid dreams where I recalled past lives, some where I received teachings or touched heads in a monastery with other monks, experienced intense vivid mandalas, etc .. and frequently in my practice I experience visions of what I can only describe as sambhogakaya emanations of buddha(s) .. for me these sorts of visions and experiences are all part of the path.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:57am · Edited · Like · 4
    Justin Struble http://www.johnmakransky.org/article_10.html
    Buddahood and Buddha Bodies by John Makransky
    www.johnmakransky.org
    In the book Awakening Through Love: Unveiling Your Deepest Goodness, John Makran...See More
    December 28, 2013 at 9:01am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
    Kyle Dixon Justin, it has nothing to do with conceit. You will not get far posting pointing out instructions or men ngag sde teachings on any dharma forum where serious practitioners congregate. I have had more than one person (some I hold in the utmost regard) leave this group due to certain teachings being discussed openly, and I am not about to advocate for topics which will make anyone else uncomfortable to the point they feel leaving the group is the appropriate option.

    If that is something you cannot understand then that is okay. But out of respect, and for the sake of everyone who wishes to be a part of this group, certain topics will not be broadcasted openly.

    You call it censorship, I call it compassion, and we can agree to disagree.

    Either way, I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm like I said, and if you disagree with me then I respect your opinion. But I don't fuck around when it comes to this stuff... and I'm not about to.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:07am · Like · 1
    Justin Struble Kyle, we obviously disagree then, in my view if individuals do not wish to read certain information on a certain topic, they can simply choose not to read a post, whereas those who may be interested no longer have that option if posts are removed.

    Furthermore, if certain individuals find that certain other individuals frequently post topics which make them uncomfortable, they can block or ignore those posters. The bottom line being that i can't think of any instance online where there aren't far better options than censoring information. I was under the impression that this group consisted mostly of the "pragmatic dharma" crowd who generally err on the side of openness in regards to the teachings.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:13am · Like · 2
    Elena Nezhinsky I feel like we are in Russia in times of Communist Party rules. They didn't want us to know many things
    December 28, 2013 at 9:18am · Like · 2
    Stuffs RedTurtle Justin that's wonderful!!
    December 28, 2013 at 9:19am · Like · 2
    Nicholas Mason There are reasons some teachings are kept secret. This all sounds like greed.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:20am · Like
    Stuffs RedTurtle I think it has to do with how esoteric they are
    December 28, 2013 at 9:24am · Like
    Elena Nezhinsky Gurgieff way kept secret too...things changing... different times. People in serious linages conditioned of exclusivity presented as esoteric knowledge that needs to be preserved in purity... true in some way
    December 28, 2013 at 9:25am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon The intimate instructions should be received from a qualified lama. Not broadcasted online. What constitutes a qualified lama in Dzogpa Chenpo? One who has completed the practice in question to fruition, or in the case of thögal and yangti; the teacher giving instruction should at least be stable in the third vision.

    Collectively, as a group we are more than liberal, open and pragmatic when it comes to different teachings.

    If my root teacher has only taught and gave transmission for a certain teaching (to an open yet still selective group) a handful of times. I'm not about to advocate for it's open broadcasting here.

    Mind you this is a tiny fraction of topics. Everything else goes!
    December 28, 2013 at 9:34am · Like · 1
    Soh Malcolm for example left this group the last time Jax posted secret stuff that is only meant for those who received dzogchen transmission. I think it was a text of direct introduction by jigme lingpa
    December 28, 2013 at 10:28am · Edited · Like
    Soh Secret stuff is a characteristic of vajrayana I dont think vajrayana can be calldd vajrayana without secret stuff. I.e. esoteric teachings. It is what makes vajrayana, vajrayana. the whole empowerment transmissiom reliance on guru. Without all these it is not vajrayana. All these are not found in other Buddhist traditions it is only perculiar to vajrayana buddhism. In chinese we call the vajrayana teachings 密教 or 密宗 which means the secret/esoteric teaching/sect
    December 28, 2013 at 9:48am · Edited · Like · 3
    Soh That said im all for the teachings to be openly available as much as possible to people... within limits
    December 28, 2013 at 10:03am · Edited · Like · 3
    Jaro Majer It's practices that are secret, because you can screw yourself up if you do yoga stuff wrong. As far as view goes, that's all open.
    December 28, 2013 at 10:18am · Like · 5
    Kyle Dixon The majority of practitioners I know carry a healthy respect for those teachings. I attended a two day talk with Keith Dowman which was supposed to be on Tregchö and Thögal. I believe he realized early on that many in the crowd had no idea what Dzogchen was. Once it came time to discuss thögal he received a few speculative questions and he had a sudden epiphany where he looked spooked like a deer in headlights. He called for a ten minute break and then once we returned he said he had said too much and that we'd be spending the remainder of the time in silence. One or two had questions and he answered those and then stated he couldn't be discussing this. I respect him for that.
    December 28, 2013 at 11:20am · Like · 5
    Logan Truthe And actually, why parade or crave after these teachings that most people have no capacity to understand or practice yet. when the time is ripe, your opportunity to receive these teachings will arise. All in the name of intellectual curiosity and pride... the continuation of the lineage of teachings will be damaged by such acts
    December 28, 2013 at 11:50am · Like · 5
    Amir Mourad Stian,

    "Phenomena are not actually non-arisen. "

    Cling to the idea that things arise and disappear, and you become blinded by one type of projection. Cling to the idea that things do not arise and disappear, and you become blinded by another type of projection Cling to the idea that things both arise and subside, and you become caught in a third type of projection. Cling to the idea that things neither arise nor subside, and you become caught in a fourth type of projection.

    Those who are unable to perceive anything beyond the attachment to the perceptions of their own mind simply cannot fathom what this teaching is pointing to. Unless one drops everything that one can grasp onto for support, as though one is left in a bottomless abyss, one will not allow even a blade of grass to be seen for what it is.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:56pm · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Anything I have posted here is not only available in open published print by the authors or translators but is also on-line. Instructions for exact thogal and yang ti practices should be restricted to a proper learning environment. The basic and secret theories of Dzogchen are fully published and released by the Dzogchen lineage masters without exception. If they are released in book form, on-line is no different in any way. Its not about "respect" its about closed-minded religiosity. The theory information in Essence Mahamudra is never "protected" for example. Why not? Because all beings will benefit as they will from what I post here as well, that's why I post it. Its really arrogant and assumptive to think the material is "above" the group member's capacity to understand. People can always ask questions...
    December 28, 2013 at 6:57pm · Like
    Amir Mourad Logan,

    "when the time is ripe, your opportunity to receive these teachings will arise"

    Let's hope that these are not the words of somebody who, wanting not to become burned, one leaps into the fire.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:58pm · Like · 1
    Amir Mourad Jackson,

    "Because all beings will benefit as they will from what I post here ,as well, that's why I post it"

    Because you are not self-realized, speaking of self-realization when you yourself should be asking questions - you are only deceiving yourself. If your compassion was as you suggested, you would be spending more time in meditation and putting an end to the unresolved karmas you are still carrying within you - rather than trying to help others. This is not said as some kind of condemnation or out of some prejudice towards you. It is something which everybody who is even superficially interested in these subjects should consider - that without cutting through one's own unresolved karmas, with or without knowing one is bound to project one's own baggage onto others.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:03pm · Edited · Like · 2
    Amir Mourad But, if one is living according to the desire for pleasure, then it is only natural to dismiss this and continue on one's way. Afterall - your conscious intentions are only known to you and there seems to be no harm in being on a secret power trip as long as you impress the whole world.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:10pm · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Amir Mourad, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me! Just like you said "Soh is totally asleep" "And John is totally asleep"... You are obviously incapable of judging anyone's state. You haven't the first level of understanding of either Dzogchen or Mahamudra, and should refrain from pretending you are an authority about "other's" state of mind.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:21pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle wrote "Justin, also those who's ignorance is fully removed in the moment of recognition giving way to two-fold emptiness are few and far between. As in; there hasn't been an individual like that for centuries."
    Kyle doesn't understand that primordial awareness is not in need of having "ignorance" removed. Nothing needs to be added or removed from our ever present rigpa awareness. Its co- emergent with the arising of every samsaric or nirvanic experience. It's our immediate naked awareness that is the empty nature of all experience. Ask yourself: "what is knowing this moment?". That quality of naked knowing is the Dharmakaya. To think in terms of progression or gradual removal of delusion, is itself the delusion. Our cognitive presence has never been distracted, deluded or afflicted. The intellect will never know this. Its a sudden shift in perspective not some "knowledge" acquired through the intellect or analysis.
    December 28, 2013 at 8:49pm · Like · 1
    Jaro Majer Kyle Dixon, when I mention, "yoga stuff," I'm including discussion of energy stuff too.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:15pm · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Jax, wisdom doesn't need ignorance removed, but the individual does.
    December 29, 2013 at 12:40am · Like · 3
    Kyle Dixon I also never said that there is a knowledge to be acquired through the intellect or analysis. That is a straw man.
    December 29, 2013 at 12:48am · Like · 1
    Din Robinson Jackson wrote:

    "Amir Mourad, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me!"

    ditto
    December 29, 2013 at 12:52am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Justin should know full well what I'm saying. He's shared that he had an intense peak glimpse of prajñā, as many of us have. Why was that only an impermanent flash? Because karmic propensities and habits kick right back in and you go back to your relative experience. Sure you've seen that it's actually always the way revealed by the prajñā, and sure you've seen that your delusion is actually wisdom, but that is irrelevant apart from being the reason that realization is possible in the first place. When ignorance is fully removed, in the rare beings who accomplish such a feat, they no longer regress back into delusion.
    December 29, 2013 at 12:56am · Like · 4
    Din Robinson from the mouths of babes

    here's something Amir shared that seems to apply to him beautifully!

    "It is something which everybody who is even superficially interested in these subjects should consider - that without cutting through one's own unresolved karmas, with or without knowing one is bound to project one's own baggage onto others."
    December 29, 2013 at 12:56am · Like · 4
    Din Robinson that's why i always think it's a good idea to reread your own posts, because they probably apply to you more than anyone else since they're your own projection!
    December 29, 2013 at 12:58am · Like · 6
    Din Robinson Kyle wrote:

    " When ignorance is fully removed, in the rare beings who accomplish such a feat, they no longer regress back into delusion."

    when ignorance is removed it's seen quite clearly that no one accomplishes anything, it's simply happening spontaneously
    December 29, 2013 at 1:02am · Edited · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon Din, the 'self' is simply habits of grasping which create the illusion of a subject relating to objects. So there's never been an entity called the self, and that means there truly can't be 'no self' either. Since the self is habits of grasping, grasping to the notion of a lack of self is precisely the self. When those habits are exhausted then wisdom remains.
    December 29, 2013 at 1:18am · Like · 8
    Amir Mourad Jackson,

    "Amir Mourad, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me!"

    That must be why your egotism had felt so threatened by my message, that you actually felt the need to block my account. Just strengthen your delicate pride, you immediately responded to my message after I was blocked, knowing well that this would not give me enough time to read your message yet doing so anyway so that you can appear to others as though you have "had the last word".

    And then you wonder why I continue saying that you are still in a deep sleep ?

    More meditation for you.
    December 29, 2013 at 3:01am · Like · 1
    Amir Mourad Jackson,

    "Just like you said "Soh is totally asleep" "And John is totally asleep"... You are obviously incapable of judging anyone's state"

    Somebody who is awakened definitely would not become offended by the suggestion that you have yet to discover who you are. That is how blinded by egotism you are - you actually consider it as an insult to be referred to as "asleep". Otherwise, why would you become offended and refer to what I have said as "arrogant" ? Perhaps it is not arrogant at all, but a simple statement of facts which has no consideration at all for whether you like or dislike it.
    December 29, 2013 at 3:08am · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Kyle said " Jax, wisdom doesn't need ignorance removed, but the individual does."

    There really is no "individual" Kyle... there are just thoughts about "individuals" arising in the Dharmakaya. You have never moved one inch from the Dharmakaya... only "thoughts" said you did...
    December 29, 2013 at 7:33am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon 'Individual' is a conventional designation. The impression of selfhood is simply an aspect of delusion, but the process of realization is for the individual and is eventually recognized to be no more valid than the individual. That however does not make it arbitrary.

    Truly nothing arises from dharmakāya. Rather, dharmakāya is the non-arising of the various aspects which constitue our relative experiences i.e. it is emptiness.

    I agree that nothing moves from its innate emptiness, that is why recognition, realization and liberation are possible.
    December 29, 2013 at 9:21am · Like · 1
    John Tan Hi Kyle,

    Just to clarify, Dharmakaya in ur case (unlike jax’s view) too is a convenient designation to denote the non-arising and emptiness of phenomena. Being a convenient designation, “arising in dharmakaya” is an aspect of delusion, just a karmic habit of reification.

    However there are 2 levels of emptiness:

    1. The emptiness of thought as a phenomenon

    2. The emptiness of the content of thought for example the “thoughts of individuals”

    My question is in case 1, is it an imputation and how does emptiness apply in case 1?
    December 29, 2013 at 10:49am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland What's up with the comments on December 26 at around 1:20? There's a bunch of comments by Jackson and it seems he's replying to missing comments.
    December 29, 2013 at 11:13am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Stian, I think Nicholas removed some of his posts around that time.
    December 29, 2013 at 11:31am · Like
    Nicholas Mason I did.
    December 29, 2013 at 11:33am · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Oh, so he's a hit and run type-of-guy
    December 29, 2013 at 11:33am · Like
    Kyle Dixon John, I'll have to grok your question for a bit while I put the kiddo to bed. I'm not sure if I'm completely clear though?

    Is this right?: In case 1; is the emptiness of thought as phenomena an imputation? And how does emptiness apply?
    December 29, 2013 at 11:39am · Like
    John Tan Yes Kyle.
    December 29, 2013 at 11:48am · Like
    John Tan Or do u consider pure sensory experiences too as imputations. Some ppl do and how do u apply emptiness to these pure sensory experiences. But If it is getting late at yr side, have a good rest.
    December 29, 2013 at 12:02pm · Edited · Like
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Kyle wrote:

    > (...) the nature of mind is not equivalent to primordial wisdom, because the nature of mind is endowed with traces which must be exhausted.

    Can you elaborate on this, Kyle? It does not fit with my understanding.
    December 29, 2013 at 12:22pm · Like · 1
    Stuffs RedTurtle I understand the train of thought, but analysis has it's place here. In terms of compassion, analysis is imperative, without analysis we can become cold to the needs of others, who haven't seen through the illusion of self. Maybe I'm deluded, but before peering into this as likened to a dream state where nothing exists from it's own side, I thought and functioned as a person with feelings and thoughts of my own, and in most cases still do , as do others, despite that they may not really be as they are perceived. It is detrimental to our own experience, or karma if we do not, especially if we are truly compassionate beings. Compassion in itself can be looked at as a concept, but to me , if one negates this, they don't see that it is infact thier ego negating this. If one has really seen through the self, we find no reason to continue to fulfill our own desires over another's. Egotism is surprisingly big in this "enlightened" community. I'm surprised and saddened by it. There should be a balance between insight and conventional wisdom, not one side or the other. The middle way.
    Not specifically directed toward anyone here, just a reflection and a reminder to myself, of humility and it's importance in this world
    December 29, 2013 at 10:35pm · Like · 4
    Kyle Dixon John, I don't consider direct unmediated perception to be imputation. Appearances are empty because they are dependently originated. For instance; colors and shape imply one another. Or the establishment of appearance would require duration and so on.
    December 30, 2013 at 1:57am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon But then Dzogchen for example approaches this issue differently with the appearances of the basis [gzhi snang] and so on.
    December 30, 2013 at 2:36am · Like
    Jackson Peterson To be clear I define Dharmàkaya as Pure Knowingness, the unborn wisdom mind of a Buddha, the source of all energy display.
    December 30, 2013 at 4:41am · Like