Anderson

What are you saying Kyle ? People in general , are not aware of the nature of their mind and cognizance and since this is not known ,evident or familiar to them are you suggesting that they are somehow cognitively impaired or damaged ? It is not healthy to make assumptions about someone's capacity based solely on their familiarity or lack thereof with their nature.On the other hand you cannot assert a necessary relation between a mind and familiarity with its nature.

Semantics makes all the difference since if it isn't explained properly one can get stuck in a mind loop forever. What to recognise? There is nothing one can recognise since one is in an unfamiliar territory.

Recognition is only possible if you've known wisdom from before. Since wisdom is a dimension totally unknown to you recognition of it wont be possible but discovery will since discovery implies that a totally new thing comes to light . However, if one discovers their nature during introduction any future encounter with that nature will elicit recognition or at least give one the chance to recognise it .

So how is this of what you describe different say from being mindfull of thoughts, feelings arising since mindfulness is just that , being present with whatever arises and letting everything be without ever losing oneself or being absorbed in that appearance.

I did only pick that quote because he explains dharmata and resting in dharmata from a very experiential point of view.After that, he goes on , explaining a bit more intellectually about the mother dharmata , where he says that meeting with that presence is like the real meeting with the mother wisdom of dharmata, the condition of all phenomena, basically just giving names and labelling the experience of resting in dharmata, in the dimension of existence itself, Dharmakaya. Also he explains the notion of mother wisdom and he makes some parallels with tantrism... If you want to consult the talk is in Collected Talks vol 3 beginning with page 386

I usually experience very little thought when i practice and i can very easily rest for 30 min without much thought arising.Since i have almost no interaction with other practitioners i have no idea if this is something difficult to achieve .For me this is what it is like and in that sense i call this ordinary..There is the occasional doubt followed by thought which spins me around and throws me out from that presence. However, here i am not saying that the state of no thought is equivalent with dharmata.Of course there is a bit more to it than just no thought. This language, the one that Norbu Rinpoche employs there, is a language of experience, unlike that of ASTNS's , a language where he tell is it AS IT IS and how it is experienced by the one who finds himself in the presence of the condition of all phenomena. And yes this is also the gap between thoughts, but it is dharmata only if one finds himself in it integrated with it rather than onridnarily looking at it, since just the mere looking at it sustains the relation between subject and object.Looking is the province of mind since mind can only know to work with qualities, with apprehending qualities where there are none. As Mnajushrimitra points out: "Since one is free from seizing on perceptible qualities, there does not exist anything that is better or worse.This supreme path is to be cultivated. What is meant by perceptible quality"Since the coming about of a perceptible quality , whther it be of a directly sensed object or a mental process regarding a past object, produces an awareness and a latching onto that perceptible quality, there is the awareness of a perceptible quality that we term "perception".Cultivating what truly is , is spoken of as "free from perceptible qualities" because there is no latching onto such a perceptible quality ." The mind is not engaged in seeking nor is it directed towards anything .One is free from knowing and not knowing. One does not engage the mind in seeking to affirm or reject , nor does one direct the mind towards any objective support.Since even mind itself is not to be found and one doesn't make a distinction between knowing and not knowing is says "free from knowing and not knowing. Remaining with the understanding of fundamental alikness , there is neither desire nor absence of desire ; through not making divisions there is also no fabrication of dualism.Since there is no latching onto thinking "this is such and such" one does not verbalize anything, therefore one is free from verbalization.There is no having to do something since there is no striving.There is also no inactivity, since one doesn't find any problems with actions through the three gates of body speech and mind These explanations are perfectly in line with how CNNr explains dharmata.

This is how CNNr describes dharmata: When we open our eyes we see objects.Through our ears we hear sounds.In the same way through all of our senses we have contact with earth, with objects.At first,generally, we have the contact.Then this presence and sensation comunicates to the mind and then there is the mental judgement of it afterwards.When one still has not yet entered into mental judgement , this is called dzin med when there is no mental creation yet entered into things.But even if there is no mental construct formulated , nevertheless everything is very present and is there to the senses, present.And so this word snang-ba which can mean vision also means sensation.It arises and appears externally.This means that there is always contact between the senses and that which is outside.Not entering into judgement, one remains present in this state.Chos means existence, whatever thing that arises , all phenomena,dharma in Sanskrit.Nyind means in its own condition. And so this is why we say here chos nyid the vission of all phenomena.So not limiting yourself ,not creating anything mentally, not entering into a concept, one remains present continually in this state.So in conclusion what we mean is that when a thought arises in the mind , one has not entered into a mental judgement of the thought.But it's not that one is sleepy in that moment.One is absolutely present right there.If one finds oneself present in that state that is beyond dualistic concepts.And even if you don't enter into a dualistic concept nevertheless is absolutely present there, including all the contact with your senses. For example if i remain in that presence for a moment even if somebody is doing something , i can make a mental note of it, even if i don't actually enter into following the thought about what he's doing.If a person were to pass in front of me i've perfectly well seen that person.Because the functioning of the senses has in no way been blocked.But i am not letting the mind enter into following with a judgement about what has happened.So it's a moment in which all the senses are present and all the vision is present.And so being present being in that state one finds oneself in what we call dharmata. To me this sounds more like mindfulness where one is present or in a state of ordinary presence in whatever circumstances one mind find oneself. A state where one is relaxed and not involved with any occurrences , letting them arise and dissolve of their own accord without any modification or appropriation.. So how is this dharmata description of CNNr which sounds absolutely ordinary and it looks like a state which anybody who has very little experience would understand it without too much effort compares to your dharmata aka wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of , knowledge which is called vidya or rigpa? Another thing is that rinpoche doesnt talk about any recognition here.Since one by having all those apsects together is in IT already, is in the right place.You can understand that you are in the right place by the signs of that place.

Our teachers never give us an indication of how difficult is to discover our nature.They just say one day you will discover it. But from what i can see for the majority of practitioners it takes years of practice and investigations until they can say with some degree of certainty that they have discovered their nature and know beyond any doubt what that is. Of course, there might be others for which the process of discovery has taken much less time...months maybe.I guess one can discover their nature in a matter of months if they do some kind of retreat but otherwise for people who have busy lives this is not so easily accomplished.

What he describes there is life in general...

moreover the Olds are not legit. There was a discussion a while ago about how they went against their lama's advice with regards to the practice of thogal.

As ASTNS explains the basis is not real in the sense of an existent since for something to exist would be to mean that they would have an essence which by definition is independent and permanent.And this would be incoherent with the meaning of the basis where manifestations occur due to its inner potentiality. The basis and its manifestations are not the same. Permanent is not a category which can be applied to the basis since "permanent" is one of the 4 conceptual extremes and the basis is beyond any such limitations since permanent can only be posited in reliance and dependency on something which is impermanent. ASTNS explains this very well above. They are exactly the same. The sun rays cannot be thought of independently of the sun

In this thread there is an lengthy discussion wbout the assertion soem people made as to whether KJ refers to Sem and where Malcolm is challenged about his maintaining that KG is ignorance aka mind(sem). Of course as Kyle maintains in that thread somewhere the confusion arises due to how KG is translated as "All creating king" where one would be led to believe that it refers to sem as opposed to sems nyid or kunzi(basis) http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1050&hilit=sem&start=120

The creator refers to the primordial state. Also one has to understand the context from which this is seen. The first paragraph lays out this context where it says the phenomena are primordially pure and conditioned phenomena have never existed.This is valid for any individual who has discovered their primordial nature .

1.Are those levels based on his personal experience? 2.If they are has he achieved the power to manipulate the elements? 3.Can those levels be traversed without the need of transmission? 4.If they can be traversed without the need of transmission , direct introduction and help from a guru that would suggest that one can realize lhundrup without the need of any of these aspects and as probably many people already know this would go against of how practitioners are instructed about how dzogchen is usually introduced, practised and realised.

Are you referring to full anatta? As in anatta of subjectivity and objectivity as well ? As far as i understand anatta of objectivity is a bit more difficult to have insight into and stabilise .

If one discovers their nature one will have discovered the indivisibility of kadag and lhundrup.However at this point we cannot say that one has entered yet into furthering or advancing in the direction of lhundrup.My understanding is that one can only start to work with that if there are concrete manifestations on the side of luminosity, i.e the self perfected formations or visions. The question is how can one work and perfect the clear light of rigpa if there is no base, i.e visions to work with in the first place ?

yes, of course.. that is , in some internet circles...

Well at first, to me, at least of one of those stages , it looked similar to dzogchen. But as Xabir said earlier , Thusness has nothing to do with dzogchen and for example the last stage in his schema- Presence is Spontaneously Perfected-it doesn't have the same meaning as the lhundrup found and introduced in upadesha.

Here CNNr clarifies it by saying: But before practice , we've said one must have knowledge of the base.And the base whether we are discussing what's spoken of in the semde, longde , in the upadesha, the base is always the same principle.The fundamental base is what we call the state of the mind.Because everybody knows about the mind, and it's very easy to understand since we exist as body voice and mind.The most profound of these would be the mind and from there we begin to understand what we call the nature of the mind. But then this nature of the mind is a very generic term.It's used in the sutras.It's used in the tantras.It's also used in the dzogchen teachings. When instead we say, let's call it, the primordial state, already this is a bit different.If we speak of the nature of the mind, we can also define that as the void, emptiness, for example, what's called in the teachings of the sutra , shunyata. Instead in the dzogchen we speak of self-perfectedness. Self-perfectedness does not simply, merely mean void.So we have to understand that the term primordial state is not precisely and simply identical to what's called the nature of the mind.So the explanation is given of the nature of the mind, of its essence , its nature and its energy.It's said that the essence is void or emptiness, the nature of it is clarity, and its energy is how it works or continues. I am not Thusness's fan.I am only intrigued by how he sees the spiritual development . Xabir has known Thusness for quite a number of years and is one of Thusness's friends or disciples , not sure which though.. Lots of dzogchen , advaita, mahamudra, etc.. practitioners are familar with Thusness and he is quite well known in these circles.These same people have communicated with him at various times over the years and had followed his advice on various matters related to practice and such. Here is the link to where these 7 stages to enlightenment as seen by Thusness are explained http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

As far as I know Lhundrup (Presence is Spontaneously Perfected) is only discussed , introduced and actualized in dzogchen via thogal and yangti methodology. How did he came to know about this aspect without the practice of dzogchen ? Not even the hindu sages of the past who practiced self-enquiry and such came this far .

Mother Earth is very tolerant.

This doesn't make sense. A discovery is when something never seen before comes or makes itself known to the mind. Yes.Previously unknown.And more accurate would be "you are discovering dharmata" No.It is only a discovery. Since what you are presented with at that moment is an aspect of your condition previously unknown to you. I have said this same thing before.If one sticks to their teacher's instructions one will be led to the place where one meets face to face with their primordial nature although initially they might not understand the meaning or the full implication of what that might be.

In most peoples cases direct transmission fails , that is, they don't discover their nature at that time. Because they don't discover their nature they dont know it.If they don't see it they cant recognize it next time. i am pretty sure you've heard the example Rinpoche gives sometime when he says IF YOU DON'T KNOW how someone looks and are unfamiliar with their appearance it will be impossible to RECOGNIZE them in a crowd. Now explain this to me .How is it possible to RECOGNIZE something you haven't seen before or you are unfamiliar with? If this is not possible then the only other way is to follow the instructions of one's teacher of how to get to "the place" where your nature "resides". Once you are there you stay there as per Mingyur Dorje's words : you just stay there. If it’s rigpa, it’s rigpa; if it’s not rigpa, it’s not rigpa; but you just stay there, any- way. Whether it’s mind you’ve gone into or not mind, it doesn’t matter; you just stay there. Whether you stay in rigpa or not, still you stay in it! Whether there are discursive thoughts coming up or not, still you stay with that. Whatever happens, happens; it is all right. Why would anybody say this other than reassuring practitioners that they are in the right place ? The reason is that we dont understand what we see and we are creating countless doubts therefore falling into mind. And i have never said that discovery is inferential.If you want to call following your teacher's advise and instructions, inferential , be my guest. Here are the two meanings of the word "recognition" and none of these meanings are apppripriate in the case of "recogniton of the nature of mind " or of "the recognition of the primordial state: 1. identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again. "I recognized her when her wig fell off" 2. acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.

What this statement points to is quite often misunderstood.

You dont seem to understand. Your dogma has blinded you . Again. The teacher gives you the explanations and you follow them to the letter.Up until that point you haven't known yet rigpa but through your teachers explanations and directions you are led to that place.When in that place you may still not know what the implications or full meaning of that might be.But you are in it, in rigpa. Mingyur Dorje for example explains in "Meditators guide to great perfection"the method of looking.According to him you look you see it and you stay there.What you see it may not be familiar to you but you definitely see something. Then in another place , based on these same instructions and directions he states: Once you have entered rigpa, you just stay there. If it’s rigpa, it’s rigpa; if it’s not rigpa, it’s not rigpa; but you just stay there, any- way. Whether it’s mind you’ve gone into or not mind, it doesn’t matter; you just stay there. Whether you stay in rigpa or not, still you stay in it! Whether there are discursive thoughts coming up or not, still you stay with that. Whatever happens, happens; it is all right. Here he highlights some of the issues us beginners face which usually arise as a result of NOT understanding, trusting WHAT WE SEE at the place we were led by the instructions and directions of our teacher. For example one has never heard of and doesn't know what a supermarket is.Then someone comes along and says you take first right and walk 10 m then turn left and walk 100 m and on you right you will see a large building surrounded by parked cars.He may not know what he sees or be unfamiliar with that sight but he trusts the directions given to him and eventually arrives at the place indicated.