C T

The increasing stability specifically refers to the process of getting used to original wakefulness (or to use the much cliched term, "rigpa") - only that remains the focus. The illusion or cataract that makes one believe there are 2 states: one thats filled with obstacles, and the other filled with bliss, is a lie. We (as practitioners) do not exert effort to identify the veils. The effort (of practice), I repeat, is simply aimed at stabilising the continual recognition of non-dual mind essence. Essentially, with the expansion of stable recognition, the veils will effortlessly fall away as a consequence. Its not even necessary to let go of any perceived blockages, no matter how subtle that letting go may be - it still necessitates effort of identification. Not implying that the method is wrong, just that the time it takes for realization to occur may have a significant bearing on how much effort is exerted, and how much frustrations may arise as a result of those exertions. This could be a crucial difference between your work and the authentic Dzogchen path.

The gradual and pervasive onset of the intermittent gaps between thoughts is one of the factors. The other is the purification of the subtle body resulting from sky gazing, prostrations and other yogic practices. Thirdly, it occurs as a result of the lessening of fluctuations of past and future thoughts. Scientific studies show that the fluttering of the eyelids is the body's natural mechanistic reflex to cause a break in mental activity so that one can tune back in to the present. Some meditation masters I've enquired from claim its a sign of stable wakefulness. One of the studies conducted claim that blinking is not random but actually predictable. The researchers observed how people watching a movie were blinking simultaneously during certain scenes.

Uh huh....

Not speaking for Steve, but in Dzogchen no effort is dispensed to break down anything, least of all perceived obstacles and veils. Why? because the mindfulness is kept relaxed and pervasive, simply acknowledging reactionary tendencies, without following after them, as senses make contact with perceptions. The subsequent content's quality, and other determinations that follow are not analysed to any degree to weigh out what are deemed hindrances or otherwise - this is not part of the process of the "resting" that is synonymous with Dzogchen practice. There is simply the continued application of recognising mind essence, not whats reflected from it. Repeated familiarization with the non-state of easeful, effortless non-distraction is the practice. Prior to this is to gain confidence of what this non-state is. This is where guru yoga is most crucial. Practising it with devotion leads to stability of original wakefulness, that which is naturally free of any impediments and clots. Strange as it may sound, an indicator of the onset of original wakefulness is the diminishing need to blink, believe it or not lol.... So if you want to weed out the realizers from the pretenders, just observe their blinking frequencies haha!!

yeah, it'll make egg tarts out of us, this US & Russi stockpile

Thats how accidents become unavoidable In the realm of spiritual pursuits, Enough people collide with imaginary trains too. Evidently, TDB's a place replete with eg. of such mishaps. Everything may be relative, but real is kinda subjective, don't you agree, sir? Your last sentence seems to suggest agreement.... although its not clear how the relationship between individual realities and merging is formed. Care to elaborate a bit? Appreciate the sharing of ideas! _/\_

Disneyland is such an alluring theme park... Such a fab variety of characters everywhere And kids think they're ALL real Some even want to merge with the characters

have a listen.....

Who would like to help explain what a fully realised Buddha means? I mean, please illuminate with your understanding what the scope of full realization entails? Anyone? Frankly, I really cannot even begin to fathom the magnitude of that sort of imaginative, fantastical fruition. Another point to consider is the usefulness of such an examination. Its like reading up a brochure about Disneyland and telling others the wonders of the place. Just go and experience the wonder, and then maybe realize its all a dream-like creation to induce a temporarily euphoric state. But that may just explain its attraction, doesn't it? As someone once aptly proclaimed, enlightenment is nothing; delusion is everything. The sweet spot of Non-distraction, i think, lies somewhere in between.

Watching The Great Hack now on Netflix. It supposes the theory that Cambridge Analytica engineered Trump's & Brexit's direction towards victory by triggering what their analysts call "the persuadables" with specific content to fire their imagination and sway decisions towards a specific intended outcome.

~ MATSU ~ The Way does not require cultivation - just don't pollute it. What is pollution? As long as you have a fluctuating mind fabricating artificialities and contrivances, all of this is pollution. If you want to understand the Way directly, the normal mind is the Way. What I mean by the normal mind is the mind without artificiality, without subjective judgments, without grasping or rejection.

mm hmm, no doubt.

According to this writer, on its current trajectory, universal salvation is lost. But tDB could still be saved, right? Interesting piece of writing. Its called "The Age of the Imbecile".

Do clouds exist? lol They may have an appearance of adorning the sky, but really, they do not have any inherent existence. Yet, they have apparent mass, and relative to the size of an aircraft, can be "felt" on contact. Thoughts no different.

Im okay howsoever you want to slice it, man, although finding pan-traditional commonalities may not always be a smooth endeavour, at least for me. I wont even use the term "truth".... such a subjective proposition. As for your question, its difficult to proffer any meaningful answer since the question is based on the assumption that there is a fixed entity able to recognise his or her own level of clarity upon "realizing" the nature of mind. Accordingly, the peerless Dudjom Rinpoche explained thus: "But what — you may ask — is it like to recognize the face of non-dual awareness? Although one experiences it, one cannot describe it. It would be like a mute person trying to describe dreams. It is impossible to distinguish between oneself resting in non-dual awareness and the non-dual awareness one is experiencing." The idea of there being a state of clarity post realization is also just a thought, a pointing finger, a wave upon the ocean. The impersonal processes of mind doing its own thing, forming thoughts, is intricately woven into identity - we take for granted that "I" am responsible for thoughts arising, and we claim ownership. This claiming or fabrication of inherent ownership is the cause of samsara, or so the Buddha said. A Buddhist practitioner does not take the Buddha at his words. He is told to investigate and discover if indeed such is the case. In fact, nothing the Buddha taught has any inherent truth. Until one applies the teaching and allow personal insight to confirm the many considerations put forth by him, it is unwise to exclaim "This is such, that is not such", when in fact, the correct approach would be, "This is such because that is such". What you consider to be clarity is relative to your own understanding, and another cannot claim to share the exact understanding.

Absolutely fine with asking questions, Jonesboy. To avoid confusion that pops up the odd time when questions veer into comparisons with other traditions where tendency to conflate often arises, might it be more helpful to narrow the questions in their appropriate contexts? What may appear parallel to you may not always be that way in fact, and sometimes its good to bear in mind that there will always be subtle meanings and application differences which can lead to outcomes of understanding that likely vary from person to person, so I guess what Forestofemptiness is asking for is the consideration of the usefulness of approximating the notion that what is found to be workable (leading to insight) in one tradition may not necessarily work the same way in another. This is not to say it wont work for you, but in terms of discourse, such approximations seldom yield much clarity. Thats how i would tend to view it. Perhaps others might have a different take. Truly delighted to hear you are working daily on your path, and you are wished the very best!

To expand on your extensive refutation of Sunyata being a provisional teaching, this little excerpt's taken from the book Nagarjunian Disputations. The author/scholar presents an interesting suggestion that might be worth contemplating on. He said, "In order to teach the sunyata of all dharmas, the Buddha had to use the misleading concepts of ordinary discourse. When dealing with people who believed in existence, he had no choice but to use the term "non existence", which ignorant people might take to refer to some peculiar entity (I suggest here the author's referencing how both existence and non-existence are prone to being reified). But the Buddha's teachings about Sunyata were just a provisional teaching (neyartha), a mere figure of speech (prajnapti). It would be as foolish to conclude from the Buddha's unavoidable use of ordinary discourse that Sunyata is a thing as it would be to conclude from the expression "the non existence of x" that the non existence of x is itself a thing." The author's assertion is based on his understanding of Chandrakirti's commentary (below) related to the cessation of views. Chadrakirti: "The cessation of views is not itself a thing. We will not even speak with those who have such an obstinate attachment to being as to make Sunyata itself a thing. It is as if one were to say to someone, "I have no wares to sell you", and the other were to reply, "Give me those non existent wares". How would such a one be able to grasp that non existence (panyabhava)?"

Thank you for the detailed reply. 👍😊

Apologies for the messy post. Im just starting to learn how to format replies properly

I think Tantra can provide proper context, and not the other way. Tantric Buddhism can be approached from either the scope of orthodoxy or radically liberal, non-conforming, non-ideating, crazy wisdom approach. Monastics tend towards the former, while the latter can be accessed by anyone, regardless of religious bent. A lot of the practice employs symbols, archetypes and so on, and these are to be understood as principles of enlightenment, ones that are not monopolised by any one school or tradition. Are you aware that the lamrim text was the first Tibetan text translated into a European language by a Jesuit priest who spent 5 years, from 1716 - 1721 studying Tibetan Buddhism? Its pretty astounding when you think about it, that a Christian missionary was largely responsible for pioneering the dissemination of Buddhadharma to the West. Not only that, but he laid the groundwork and paved the way for latter Western scholars and translators to access the vast collections of Tibetan Buddhist texts and secret instructions. I am reminded of the precious words of Guru Padmasambhava here: “Mind” is discovered to be without something outside or inside. It does not have someone that looks; it is not the act of looking. It is experienced as a great original wakefulness without center or edge, an immense all-pervasiveness that is primordially empty and free. This original wakefulness is intrinsic and self-existing. It is not made right now, but is present within yourself from the very beginning. Decide firmly that the view is to recognize just that! To “possess confidence” in this means to realize that like space, mind is spontaneously present from the beginning. Like the sun, it is free from any basis for the darkness of ignorance. Like a lotus flower, it is untainted by faults. Like gold, it doesn’t alter its own nature. Like the ocean, it is unmoving. Like a river, it is unceasing. Like Mount Sumeru, it is utterly unchanging.Once you realize that this is how it is [and stabilize it], that is called “possessing the view of realization.” "When you realize that all that appears and exists to be your mind, there is no path of enlightenment apart from that." Emptiness teachings, which are provisional, are therefore incumbent on the recognition of mind essence, which is the ultimate emptiness since its real nature is inseparable from Dharmakaya. Without that recognition, the teachings will always remain dogmatic and provisional, relative and inconsequential. Its like talking about the exquisite taste of an exotic fruit that one has yet to experience. There is no disagreement with the position and wisdom of Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche, which incidentally does not negate what I have stated. With the right motivation, which takes precedence over every other considerations as a practitioner, it is possible that one can bypass rigid conceptual frameworks and attain liberation. That is why Tibetan Buddhist literature, and many testimonials from masters are replete with accounts of ordinary folks - farmers, peasants, herders, secret practitioners all - who attained rainbow bodies merely from the power of devotion and little else.

There is either a recognition of on-going experience, or a conception of an experiencer. The moment an experiencer is conceived, that is already a past moment. So in actual fact, this "thing", being found only as a recollection of thought, is empty and just a memory.

There is experiencing, but the experiencer is not found

I don't have any ultimate answers Im afraid, my friend. Don't think its really helpful to speculate as that might create more confusion, as is the nature of ordinary discursive minds. All I can say is when we slowly disperse the layers of mental obscuration, our inner vision begins to clarify accordingly, until pure perception reaches a point of constant stability, meaning everything appears like a dream, and buddha activity takes place only in that dreamlike world of relatvity, and in reality (the ultimate of ultimates?), nothing happens at all except constant flux (of energy?) without a beginning - I don't really know, save for very tiny glimpses now and then, so please don't take these words as final or authoritative. I suppose the above is one way to explain how that Zen saying to kill the Buddha came about. One of my teachers said that life is one big uncertainty, and the more we get okay with that understanding, the better our meditation becomes. This realization helps to affirm what Buddha taught about having no position being the ideal position. He said that "Yes" and "No" keeps changing all the time, so a practitioner will do well to hang loose by avoiding fixated thinking that things are either this way or that way.

Is it possible to consider there is no Rex to begin with, to attain anything, let alone Buddhahood? (sorry Rex :)) "I manifested in a dreamlike way, to dreamlike beings, and taught a dreamlike Dharma; In reality, I never taught, and never actually appeared." ~ Shakyamuni Buddha