asunthatneversets

Vimalamitra states: "Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist." Also: "Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore: Everything arose from non-arising; even arising itself never arose. Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning." The sgra thal gyur tantra states: "Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness." It also states: "Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist." The basis has no essence because its "essence" is ka dag i.e. emptiness free from extremes. The basis is not the essence, the basis is essence, nature and compassion, which are all merely conventional descriptions and designations used to describe what is conventionally termed the "basis". The basis is only the "basis" because it has not been recognized, once the basis is recognized then it becomes the path, and when the path is complete it is then the result. The statements from "The Marvelous Primordial State" are just fine in their context, however you are misinterpreting them and taking them out of context. To be honest I am not a big fan of some of the choices in translation in that book, but to each their own. Bottom line is the view you are asserting is that of the Brahman of Vedanta, which is an eternalist doctrine and is not related to Dzogpa Chenpo in any way shape or form. In fact, the view of Advaita Vedanta is refuted by name in the Dzogchen tantras.

It is definitely not the self. The primordial state is not the self, nor anything like that. This is again conflating eternalist doctrines with Dzogchen. Longchenpa states: "The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the self [ātman] of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality." The personification of the primordial state does not mean that it is a "creator", and in the context of the proper view of Dzogchen, the primordial state does not "create" anything at all. That is why liberation is possible, because the alleged "creation" called the universe, or any other alleged creation, are nothing more than figments of ignorance. When ignorance is overturned, the non-arising of phenomena is recognized, and the implications of mistaking those abstractions as genuinely created persons, places, things, etc., are liberated. Our nature possesses potentiality for manifesting empty appearances, but nothing is "created", nothing ever arises or comes into existence. The extremes of existence, non-existence, etc., are misunderstandings. Projections of confusion. Moreover, the aspect of the primordial state that appears, which is the nature [rang bzhin] of primordial wisdom, is lhun grub, and lhun grub means "sus ma byas" i.e. not "made by anyone". So lhun grub is simply the sheer exertion of the potentiality of the primordial state, inseparable from the essence [ngo bo] of primordial wisdom, which is ka dag. Meaning that nothing is ever "created" at any time, empty appearance never began. So how does the so-called "universe" arise? It arises due to non-recognition of the primordial state. The appearance of the basis [gzhi snang] is mistaken for conditioned phenomena, and this is how alleged "creation" occurs. "From the seed of attachment and aversion, the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes." - Uprooting Delusion Tantra

Nothing to do with DW, and everything to do with having some common sense and integrity. The Old's never completed the practice in the first place, and so are not qualified to teach it. As far as the practice goes, broadcasting it in general is career suicide. Further, they completely decimated their transmissions by including drawn depictions of their visions in books they published and sold to Joe Blow and Jane Doe off the street for a profit. It's bad news all around in my opinion, and not something that I would touch with a ten foot pole.

None of these practices correspond with any of the assertions you're making.

Yet all of that is merely conventional description, and doesn't point to anything real. If you think you've found a projector inside you then you haven't understood dzogchen... but how could you anyway without a teacher.

Malcolm's logic is correct and sound in his statements regarding the basis [gzhi]. You are misinterpreting the term "real" in the citations you are providing. "Real dimension" means "authentic", "accurate", "veridical", "valid", etc., not real in the sense you are attempting to assert, which is an essentialist view akin to that found in eternalist doctrines. Also, the appearance of the basis [gzhi snang] is precisely the basis [gzhi], the appearances are the nature [rang bzhin] and compassion [thugs rje] aspects of the basis to be exact. The basis is completely illusory and unreal, and so its appearances are equally illusory and unreal. This is what the Tibetan phrase "med par gsal snang" i.e. clearly apparent non-existent, is conveying. Why is that? Because the nature and compassion aspects of the basis are never separate from the aspect of original purity [ka dag], meaning they are non-arisen and free from extremes. In Dzogchen there is no "movie projected onto a screen", this is importing Vedantic notions into Dzogchen. If the basis was "real" meaning "existent" it would be unable to manifest anything due to being fixed and devoid of potentiality for dynamic expression. A "real" basis is completely unintelligible, flawed logic through and through.

Neither of those tantras are stating that reality is created. And both the kulayarāja [kun byed rgyal po] and the mejung [byang chub kyi sems rmad du byung ba] are bodhicitta texts belonging to the sems sde series of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. Samantabhadra is a symbolic personification of the natural state, a literary device, certainly not a creator by any means.

Well, you're walking, quacking and swimming like you're making ill informed generalizations about someone you don't know... perhaps you are making ill informed generalizations about someone you don't know.

This is really just semantical nitpicking at this point. Whatever context you'd like to present the notion in; (i) as a practitioner you are informed of dharmatā, then you receive pointing out instructions to recognize dharmatā, and you either recognize or you don't. (ii) when you recognize dharmatā you have discovered the nature of your mind. Either way, in the relative sense when the notions of recognition and/or non-recognition are discussed, this is all pertinent to your mind. The teachings also make it a point to state that samsara and nirvāna are not apart from the mind. Sure, whatever context works for you. Either is applicable. If you are in recognition of your nature, that is the path of liberation. If you are not in recognition of your nature, that is the path of suffering. Right, and because it is an aspect of your condition there is either recognition, or non-recognition of it. Which means that one's knowledge will remain provisional or inferential until the definitive recognition occurs. After recognition one's knowledge will then be definitive, but will remain incomplete until karmic traces are fully exhausted.

You are recognizing something you haven't seen before and are unfamiliar with because recognition of the mind's nature is a discovery. You are recognizing dharmatā. It is not something you have previously known. The recognition is a discovery, your nature is revealed, and so whereas you did not before, you now have that intimate experiential knowledge of dharmatā. Mingyur Dorje's exposition in that excerpt is instructions on the placement of the mind when training. You rest in the causal ālaya, which is the provisional meditation, and you maintain that view. That practice aids in creating the fertile circumstances for prajñā to flash forth. That is why he is saying that is the placement for practice, and that is maintained, if vidyā appears then it does, if it doesn't then you still maintain that placement. In time that provisional view will flower into the definitive view. Also, I have never heard the 'face in the crowd' metaphor explained in the way you are referencing it. The actual application of that example is to convey the conviction and certainty that comes with recognizing the nature of mind. It is a doubtless certainty which does not require secondary confirmation. Just as you would not need anyone to confirm that you had just seen the face of an old friend in a crowd. You simply know that is your friend. Recognizing dharmatā is like that, hence "The Beacon of Certainty", recognizing your nature is like meeting an old friend, there is no doubt.

That is all well and good Anderson, I'm not out to sink your battleship. You appear to be quite invested in the idea that recognition is something which is a vague, grey area, undefined and questionable. If that works for you that is great, but that has not been my experience. Sure the practices which are applied in the wake of introduction (to either reveal - or further solidify one's knowledge of - mind essence) may initially be inferential, but that does not mean that recognition itself is inferential. It is quite the opposite. In fact my teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu just said today that one's recognition of their primordial state is something concrete, free of mind and the ignorance which gives rise to the illusions of time, space, subject, object, etc., it is not an inferential and vague species of experiential insight by any means. But to each their own, we are all different and have varying capacities. How you choose to interpret your experience of recognition is hardly indicative of a dogmatic misunderstanding on my part, but you are welcome to convince yourself of whatever you'd like.

I see...

The difference between "no self" and "no-self" is that the latter is a something? And any communicated insight really fails to capture the actuality of any occurrence, this goes without saying wouldn't you agree? A description of the taste of an orange is not the direct taste of an orange. The description of these realizations is subject to the very same principle.

Śākyamuni discussed and explained in the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra why affirming or negating the self is problematic. Which all comes down to identification and grasping. The 'self' is a conventional label ascribed to the dense structure of habitual tendencies to grasp (and identify with the figments of grasping). There is no self as such, the self is just a collection of propensities, so in that way there has never been a self within that web of habituation to begin with. However those habits are still the foundation that the afflictive abstraction called the 'self' is predicated upon, so as long as that affliction is present, the so called self is as well. Śākyamuni therefore said that grasping at either notion (existence or non-existence of the self) is simply the mind again identifying with something, and so that very act of grasping perpetuates the illusion of selfhood. This is why he was silent, because giving an answer that his disciples could identify with and grasp to would simply feed the fire of ignorance, which is the cause of the reference point called the self. "Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self, because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions." - Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's statement that there is no basis for non-recognition, if that is something he said, does not contradict the necessity of recognition. The entire praxis of Dzogchen, Mahamudra, etc., is predicated on recognition. "But the difference between samsara and nirvana is simply a matter of of either recognizing or not recognizing. The very moment you recognize, there is nothing simpler than that. In the moment of seeing mind-essence [sems nyid], it is already recognized; there is nothing more that needs to be done. At that very moment it is not necessary to meditate even a speck. Shamatha needs to be meditated, cultivated. This emptiness does not posses an atom of anything to meditate on. After recognizing, of course, we lose the continuity. We get distracted. Losing the continuity, becoming distracted, is itself the state of delusion. Meditating on buddha nature as if it were an object is the work of conceptual mind. This conceptual mind is exactly what keeps us spinning through samsara." - Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche "We need to recognize this, train in it and attain stability in the recognition. Recognizing is like the example of an infant who grows up into a twenty-five year old man. From infancy, the training is to recognize and continue recognizing until full mastery... The paths and levels toward enlightenment describe degrees of stability in recognition. We need to recognize empty cognizance - what this present moment of unmade wakefulness really is. Allow that to simply be as it is; let be in naturalness. That is the whole teaching in a nutshell. Having recognized this, train in it through uncontrived naturalness. Finally attain stability." - Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche "Mind [sems] and its essence [sems nyid] are not separate, just like the sun and its rays are not separate. Coemergent wisdom and coemergent ignorance are also as inseparable as fire and smoke. We have never been separate from this essence for even a moment. Our true nature is Samantabhadra - the nature pervading both samsara and nirvana. Even though it's always been present, this alone doesn't help, because it hasn't been recognized. We need to recognize it." - Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche So, as you can see Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche gives much credence to recognition, as he should. Yes the nature [rang bzhin] of that state is naturally perfected clarity [lhun grub gsal ba], however the essence [ngo bo] is emptiness [stong pa nyid], and if you only have the clarity without the recognition of emptiness, then you simply have a mind [sems] with no insight into the nature of that mind [sems nyid]. As Tsoknyi Rinpoche states: "Sometimes I say emptiness in the clarity and sometimes emptiness in the appearance. These mean exactly the same thing because emptiness is emptiness in each case and because the clarity part and the appearance part come down to the same meaning. Clarity is the knower and appearances are what it knows. Now, when we do not know this emptiness and appearance we stay in duality and staying in duality we are confused. The definition of confusion is: 'Not directly seeing the actuality of things'." Discovery and recognition are synonymous. You are recognizing the natural and uncontrived dharmatā which is your nature. Or you are discovering the actuality of mind and phenomena, their dharmatā. Same either way. Also, the fact that recognition is first and foremost means that in the wake of that recognition, there is no doubt as to what one is seeking to revisit and familiarize with. That is why recognition is the first step. "Meditation is not foremost, realization is foremost; If realization is not entered with confidence, the meditator is merely meditating on a conceptual state, the seeker is seeking with an afflicted clinging." - kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa "Just be" is a very dangerous notion to throw around which can easily be misinterpreted. It is true that in the instance of recognition you simply rest and allow the continuity of that insight to be natural. However that does not mean that one has arrived at the place indicated and can abandon effort. It simply means one has recognized mind-essence, and now the praxis is to integrate with that insight. You also seem to be fixating on the nature [rang bzhin lhun grub] of the basis [gzhi], however again, the nature alone is not the basis. The basis is essence, nature and compassion. The aspect of continuity, or continuum, is the non-dual essence and nature. The nature alone is insufficient, and truly, the essence [ngo bo ka dag] is held to be the only definitive aspect of the basis according to the Dzogchen tantras. The last excerpt from the kun byed rgyal po that you cite is referencing the view from the standpoint of dharmatā. If you interpret that statement as applying to your relative condition then you will be shooting yourself in the foot.

You two are using continuity in two completely different ways. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is discussing resting in the continuity of dharmatā when flashes of prajñā shine forth. Short moments, many times, which is just about all the average practitioner is capable of anyway. Anderson was talking about the compassion aspect of our nature, which is the dynamic and energetic continuity implied by the inseparability [dbyer med] of clarity and emptiness.

The recognition that mind is non-arisen [sems nyid] is what reveals dharmatā, and resting in dharmatā is the path of liberation. So recognition of the nature of mind is precisely what elicits the process of liberation. The nature of mind is not something which is an inferential toying, you either recognize it or you don't, if you have recognized it then you know wisdom and familiarization with wisdom is the cause of liberation. If you have not recognized it, then avidyā is still in tact, and one must continue to practice any of the various methods which are provided to induce recognition. Recognizing the nature of mind [sems nyid] is what separates ignorance from wisdom. Padmasambhava states: "If you are asked what the difference is between the mind of the truly perfected Buddha and the mind of sentient beings of the three realms, it is nothing other than the difference between realizing and not realizing the nature of mind. Since sentient beings fail to realize this nature, delusion occurs and from this ignorance the myriad types of sufferings come to pass. Thus beings roam through samsara. The basic material of buddhahood is in them, but they fail to recognize it." The nature of mind is not a concept, it is the pacification of concepts. The collapse of ignorance and the afflictive structuring called 'mind'. You are separating the 'empty side' of your condition from 'clarity' and 'continuity'... however this cannot be done. Your mind is already clarity, reified into a mind. You mistake your clarity as a substantiated reference point, this is why sentient beings are sentient beings, and this is the cause of suffering. Only when clarity is recognized to be empty i.e. non-arisen, is that reference point pacified. In the context of the mind's nature, emptiness and clarity are non-dual, meaning; clarity is naturally unborn, unstructured, free of inherency, free of arising, abiding and cessation. The fact that clarity is primordially empty means that it never arose in the first place, and what has not arisen cannot cease, hence; the unceasing continuity of our unfabricated nature. "Friends, I know of no other single thing, so quickly changing as this swift mind, insofar as it is not easy to find just one other phenomena changing equally fast. Shining bright, friends, is this mind, yet it is obstructed by external defilements. Luminous absolutely, is that pure mind, when it is safely released and freed from these alien impurities. Naturally Radiant is this mind, though it is soiled by these accumulated foreign obscurations. This, the ordinary unlearned persons cannot understand as it really is! I tell you, that is why uneducated ordinary persons neither meditate nor develop mentally. Luminous is that mind, friends, when it is purified & released from these fermented pollutions. This does the learned Noble Disciple fully understand as it really is. I tell you, that is why that educated Noble Disciple develops & improve mentally by training meditation..." - Buddha Śākyamuni ('developing mentally' in this context is referencing integration with dharmatā)

Word to the wise, you should try to refrain from speaking of such things too openly or broadcasting them out there for anyone to hear. The general view is that this sort of ability retains its potency by keeping it to yourself, staying quiet and humble... and can be compromised or lost by 'advertising' it, so to speak (not that you're advertising). Just saying. If you have acquired this ability, then hone it and keep it on the hush apart from notifying those who you are going to help, and help as many beings as you can!

Not sure which edited post you're referring to but I haven't edited any lately, especially not to change anything I've written. I'm also not sure what you find strange, but being that we are obviously coming from different points of view on a few things, I could also label things you've said 'strange', though really you're just sharing your opinion, which you are welcome to. All in all, i have not say anything that contradicts what Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is attempting to convey in the quote you cited.

Dukkha is important because if it isn't fully understood that everything in samsara is suffering, in the sense that nothing can be a lasting peace, nothing can fill the apparent void, etc., then we will continue to search for lasting happiness and peace through worldly pursuits. We will continue to turn to the relative world for fulfillment, which is like trying to scoop up water with a fork, it will never happen. Only when we fully understand that there is no peace, solace or purpose to be found in samsara can the journey towards liberation begin. Otherwise we will always think there is meaning to be found in our relative desires and projected hopes, and we will attempt to find refuge in that without any possibility of it providing shelter. Just as the improvements and acquisitions in a dream cannot deliver lasting peace, the improvements and acquisitions of samsara cannot either. As long as we identify with the possibility of a greater or more refined experiences within the limited confines of samsara, we are building sandcastles. This is why the bhāvacakra is a wheel, why samsara is a cycle, no point is higher or lower than another. Every realm, including the god realms and so on, are delusion and suffering. Buddhahood and liberation are not depicted on the wheel for a reason.

Not sure if that is directed at my comment, but I was not advocating for an utter lack of ignorance, nor that the path is extraneous. I was merely saying there is no inherent mind and no inherent self, but that doesn't mean there is no affliction to overcome, nor does it mean there is no path to traverse.

Well, the ignorant mind has never truly occurred either. Both mind and self are abstractions, where there is a self you find a mind, where there is a mind you find a self. Recognizing the emptiness of one is recognizing the emptiness of the other, and that species of knowledge reveals that both are primordially non-arisen.

Mind is clarity [cognizance] reified into a substantial reference point. The clarity aspect is the part that can be conditioned and as long as that conditioning is present then the illusion of an entity is present. In order to cut through that delusion, the emptiness of that substantiated reference point must be recognized, which is the non-arising [i.e. emptiness] of clarity. When that non-arising nature is directly recognized then the artificial reference point of mind collapses. The mind is an illusion, so the mind cannot be empty and cognizant (knowing). The knowing [shes pa] and cognizance [gsal ba] are wrongly attributed to a 'mind'. However in truth there is no mind. 'Emptiness' is not a quality which can cognize or perform actions. Emptiness is simply the lack of inherency of that which is empty. So there is cognizance, and cognizance is empty. There is knowing, and knowing is empty. The trouble arises when these modalities are not recognized as empty, and are instead reified into substantial characteristics which belong to an established entity. Recognizing the emptiness of these faculties means it is realized that they are not truly existent modalities, they are nothing substantial, this knowledge is the doorway to liberation.

The point of reincarnation without a self is that the self has never occurred in the first place. What we refer to as a 'self' is merely a collection of afflictive patterns and the habituated tendencies which sustain those patterns. Ignorance and karmic patterns are the mother and father of samsara. As long as those two factors are able to proliferate then the cycle of life, death, bardo will repeat. The continuity of selfhood is merely the continuity of these processes. There is no self within nor apart from those processes, yet those processes are treated as an individual entity out of sheer ignorance. This is why when ignorance is overturned, and karma is exhausted, there is liberation. The self has no part of any of this, Buddhism doesn't deal with a self or a lack thereof. The self has been non-arisen since beginningless time. All Buddhism works with is ignorance and a lack thereof (wisdom).

Do the discussions here really deteriorate into vitriol all that much? It doesn't seem as bad as this thread suggests.