asunthatneversets
-
Content count
665 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Everything posted by asunthatneversets
-
If you've recognized the nature of phenomena then "non-arisen", "illusory" "empty of characteristics", "non-inherent" and so on are accurate descriptions of that insight.. Wisdom simply means you posses an accurate and direct non-conceptual knowledge of your state. Hence 'gnas lugs', which is popularly translated as 'the natural state', but actually means something like 'the (actual) way things are'.
-
"If one knows [shes] the buddhahood that has always been [ye] naturally formed by nature, there will be buddhahood of clear realization. That is the definition of wisdom [ye shes]." - Rigpa Rangshar tantra [per Malcolm]
-
That is definitely not the meaning of emptiness.
-
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
These are possible manifestations of clarity and are no doubt profound experiences but they are not necessarily indicative of the definitive rigpa, in the sense that the definitive rigpa cannot be said to be precisely those experiences. Otherwise people will read that and identify rigpa with seeing through walls and so on and will instead be grasping at clarity and hoping for nyams such as the ones you mentioned. I mean that in the sense that someone may be resting in rigpa yet may not be seeing through walls etc., so rigpa does not necessarily entail such experiences. There can be many types of experiences due to the fact that we all have different capacities and constitutions, so they are in no way uniform. Certain people may be prone to seeing lights and colors etc., while the next individual may be prone to other types of nyams, neither is right or wrong, nor superior or inferior. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Experiencing the display of appearances as illusory is one possibility. Doesn't mean phenomena will consistently appear in that way though. Only higher bhūmi bodhisattva's consistently experience phenomena in their natural condition. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
In every case, the appearances of the basis [gzhi] are only known from the standpoint of vidyā. From the standpoint of avidyā [ma rig pa], the appearances of the basis are filtered through the veil of delusion and are thus perceived as conditioned conventional phenomena. Since keyboards, friends and apples are conventional phenomena they are objects of deluded cognition and are therefore not appearances of the basis, but are the all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi]. In the event that the true nature of conditioned phenomena is recognized, and that phenomena is directly cognized to be non-arisen, then that is knowledge [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa] of the basis, whereby the basis immediately becomes the path. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Rinpoche just warned against it the other night. He referenced attachment to formless states and discussed how it is cause for rebirth as a deva. The ālaya isn't only a neutral blank fuzzy state, it is the totality of your relative condition. You either rest in the ālaya or in dharmakāya [ignorance or wisdom]. So the ālaya is the foundation for every relative state, and it collapses when the basis is recognized. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Norbu Rinpoche makes the distinction but doesn't use the term ālaya or kun gzhi. He simply uses ignorance [ma rig pa], which is equivalent to the ālaya. And I have of course heard him warn against taking delusion as a foundation for the path. One of the foremost reasons the ālaya [tib. kun gzhi] isn't universally mentioned in every aspect of Atiyoga is because the dual basis model is generally only found in the context of man ngag sde class of teachings. Due to the fact the man ngag sde practices which focus on the lhun grub aspect of our nature are by default working with the appearances of the basis [gzhi snang], a concept which is a later formulation not featured in earlier Dzogchen texts. The two base model allows for an explanation as to how deluded appearances result from non-recognition of the basis [gzhi], but are not themselves appearances of the basis [gzhi]. The appearances of the basis act as a cause for deluded appearances, but because the basis is originally pure, delusion never occurs in the basis and therefore afflictive appearances cannot arise from the basis itself ('deluded appearances' are the myriad expressions of conventional reality, such as persons, places, things, etc). -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Yes I have. Wallace also makes a hard distinction between the kun gzhi [ālaya] and primordial wisdom. Which is to be expected being that the book is based off the teachings of Dudjom Lingpa. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Both the gzhi and kun gzhi are personal bases. Dzogchen doesn't posit a transpersonal basis. A view like that (which upholds a transpersonal basis) would be more along the lines of Vedanta or a tradition of that type. 'Kun gzhi' is the 'all-basis' or 'the basis of all' i.e. 'basis of everything' because 'everything' meaning: conditioned phenomena which accord with the extremes of existence or non-existence, result from ignorance. In Dzogchen, the all-basis [kun gzhi] is synonymous with ignorance. When the definitive nature is recognized, it is directly apperceived that nothing has ever arisen at any time, and that so-called conditioned phenomena have been non-arisen since beginningless time. Which means that the 'all' or 'everything' that the all-basis [kun gzhi] is the basis of, is deluded fabrication, and the all-basis is itself delusion. The all-basis [kun gzhi] collapses upon recognition of the basis [gzhi]. So the all-basis is not a transpersonal basis of everything. The basis of everything simply means it is the afflicted basis of delusion which is ignorant of its state and therefore conceives of 'things'. The primordial basis is also personal. Your basis isn't my basis, nor is mine yours. Otherwise when you achieve realization I would as well, and vice versa... but that of course isn't the case. Dzogchen doesn't uphold a transpersonal basis, only tīrthika views posit a nature like that. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Also, when Lopön Rinpoche is discussing 'space' he is referencing 'dbyings'. The inner and outer dbyings or dimensions. Which is a different use of 'space' when compared to Longchenpa stating that space is a metaphor for awakened mind. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Either way though, you and Lopön Rinpoche are discussing two completely different things. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
The basis is obscured for sentient beings, that is why they transmigrate in cyclic existence. Lopön Rinpoche is referencing the kun gzhi rnam shes when he says 'ālaya', which means he's actually discussing the ālayavijñāna. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
The term 'gzhi' is a Nyingma man ngag sde term, not something that Norbu Rinpoche's translators fabricated. The man ngag sde tantras implement a dual basis model, the primordial basis [ye gzhi] (or simply 'gzhi') and then the afflicted basis, called the 'all-basis' [kun gzhi], which is the polluted foundation of ignorance that samsara arises from (technically both samsara and nirvana). The fact that certain Bönpo lamas have chosen to refer to the primordial basis as 'kunzhi' is no doubt confusing for some. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Case in point: "O Vidyāvajra, 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. 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." - Dudjom Lingpa -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
You're still describing relative absorption states which have nothing to do with the definitive view. The term "space" has many applications and is used to translate a few Tibetan terms. None of those terms represent anything which even remotely resembles the ārūpadhyāna meditations you are describing. All you are touching on is the ālaya. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Yes there's a correlation between the central channel and the natural state, but not in the sense Tibetan Ice was describing. The statement that a formless absorption state is equivalent to the nature of mind is an inaccurate assertion. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Bottom line; the Dzogchen tantras, and most every buddhist teaching, warn against attachment to formless realms like the one you described above. They are cause for rebirth in devalokas. Definitely not the 'natural state' [gnas lugs]. The real meaning of 'gnas lugs' is 'the way things are', which means gnas lugs implies knowledge of dharmatā. Not some ārūpadhātu. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Well, no one has been able to use such practices to take over another body, living or dead, for centuries. You either know your state or you don't. I don't broadcast my experience all over internet forums. I have nothing to prove. Authority is for fools. My teachers are Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and Drubpon Gonpo Dorje Rinpoche. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
The ejection of consciousness in phowa is not a practice which is exclusive to Dzogchen. Phowa is a practice which is implemented in preparation for death so the consciousness can be ejected from the crown instead of leaving through one of the other doors. -
The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate
asunthatneversets replied to gatito's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Whatever you are describing is definitely not the 'natural state' [tathātva]. Sounds more like some sort of ārūpadhātu (and most likely is, given your affinity for the ārūpadhyānas you often post about). Since you don't have a teacher, and are openly against having a teacher (for who knows what reason), you tend to fall victim to your own misinterpretations. Which is unfortunate, but you make your own bed on that account. The 'space' [klong] discussed in Bönpo and Buddhist Dzogchen has nothing to do with ārūpadhātus or anything close to what you are referencing. -
Journey to Certainty - Anyen Rinpoche
asunthatneversets replied to Tibetan_Ice's topic in Buddhist Discussion
There's also more than three types [modalities] of vidyā. The Bön list fifteen, and the Nyingma have more than three as well. -
Journey to Certainty - Anyen Rinpoche
asunthatneversets replied to Tibetan_Ice's topic in Buddhist Discussion
You need a teacher for that. Can't be learned from a book. -
Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is non-sectarian as well, so that can't be it.
-
Ah no, I'm saying if you are unfamiliar with your own ordinary, everyday mind (or cognizance), then you might have an issue.. Your own conscious wakefulness should undoubtably be the most intimate aspect of your experience. And so its nature, when and if that species of insight comes about, will not be insight into unfamiliar territory but rather a revelation about something very intimate.
