Impermenant monism, somewhere in between

[Old Man Contradiction]

I was reading Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, and something occurred to me. Buddhism says the inherent flaw in Advaita philosophy is that nonduality is the end all be all of realization. Maharaj of Tantra Nath lineage (not advaita) also has experienced deeper truth than that of nondualism. Basically his process is like this:

 

Seek the source of your "I-am-ness" or ego, abide that which is prior to the "I" thought. Then you will realize nonduality, but even nonduality is impermanent and relative. He says going beyond that is indescribable. You realize that there is no unity and no nonduality. I'm a noob so I can't really elaborate...

 

I was wondering if our buddhists can compare this teaching to buddhism. It looks like to me one example of an enlightened being that is not buddhist, considering his experience of deeper truth than nonduality.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[xabir2005]

Edited October 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

I Am' is not there when sense of self is not imputed on sensate reality. But when we truly know what awareness is, there is no 'I Am'. That does not require being in a state of oblivion. What is important is to experience the one taste of oblivion and presence.

 

xabir, who is saying the above quote and what doctrine do you attribute it to? I sure hope you don't attribute it to Buddhism though.

 

First, since there is no confirmatory experience, there is no way to arrive at a place where you can consider "I truly know awareness." You can still decide that you know it, but this decision is creative and playful. It's a declaration. It's not like something in your field of experience forced you to recognize awareness. It's not a matter of being presented with or experiencing irrefutable evidence.

 

If you want to say that the feeling of self is deceptive, you must, as a good Buddhist, acknowledge that the feeling of there being anything other than self is equally as deceptive, since it's two sides of the same coin. And you don't seem to be doing a good job of it.

 

If you experience oblivion and presence as of one taste, and view this as an inherently significant experience, it implies you do not see that "one taste" and "multiple tastes" are also one taste. It means you're still thinking that one taste is a special experience that is especially instructive and has the power to liberate. If you think that, it means your insight is not yet mature, as you still do not comprehend the insubstantiality of differences.

 

To put this in other words, many Buddhists strive in vain after the non-conceptual truth forgetting that the difference between conceptual and non-conceptual is a concept that they are trying to avoid or transcend. Giving blind and non-nuanced preference to non-conceptual perceptions is not really Buddhist-like. It's kind of a dogmatic deviation from the true intent of Buddha, which is actually very mysterious and not to be summarized.

[xabir2005]

No, the one taste of oblivion and presence is not a 'special experience' but is a realisation of what is already and always the case in all moments of experience, all sense doors. And that is precisely the meaning of all experiences having 'one taste'. It's all the nature of mind, luminous and empty. Why oblivion? Because absolutely no centerpoint, observer, I AM. Yet there is vivid presence all and everywhere. The presence is not different from the presence of I AM but that I AM is no more I AM than a passing sound, passing sight. There is no self apart from everything arising moment to moment. This is not a stage, this is a truth/fact of existence/dharma seal. Anatta is a dharma seal. In the thought just the thought, in the sensed just the sensed, no 'me' in terms of that, in there, or between the two. (Bahiya Sutta) There is no denying that concepts can arise, but in the thought just the thought, there is no 'me' in reference to the concept, the concept is not a 'thing' either, just luminous emptiness.

 

And that part you quoted comes from Thusness.

 

GTG to school, thats all for now.

Edited October 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

To Old Man Contradiction - there is no 'beyond' in Buddhism. No manifestation-transcending-eternal-Absolute/Substratum.

 

Just added a point to above: So according to Buddhism what Nisargadatta said is not the most essential state. That is not the absolute state. That is just another state that is equally empty (dependently originated). That too will pass due to its emptiness nature and is no purer than that 'I AM' state.

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

 

----------------------------------

 

Loppon Namdrol:

 

There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."

 

Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

 

Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.

 

Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:

I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,

the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --

not ceasing, not arising

not annihilated, not permanent,

not going, not coming,

not diverse, not single,

was taught as peace

in order to pacify proliferation.

Edited October 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[Old Man Contradiction]

hmmm, that feels right. And I apologize for my monotonous questions, I should get a book on Dzogchen.

 

Now my question is... let's say you realize the truth that's always been laying on your background, you realize nonduality, you realize Maharaj's "parabrahma", and then you walk into a buddhist temple to speak to a buddha... What would this buddha tell you?

 

So according to Dzogchen and dependant origination, what happens when "you are liberated" and then your body dies?

Edited October 5, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[xabir2005]

Edited October 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[Old Man Contradiction]

I can't really comment further until I meditate and read more. What is a good book for learning about Dzogchen? It seems like accepting dependant origination would take a lot of "not defining things"...

[Vajrahridaya]

I can't really comment further until I meditate and read more. What is a good book for learning about Dzogchen? It seems like accepting dependant origination would take a lot of "not defining things"...

 

Books by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu are good places to start... well and end. But it's a good start.

 

Dependent Origination defines things very succinctly actually. When you have an understanding of it, it see's things and defines things as they are, not through a mystical essence of some sort, or a universal non-conceptual substratum that transcends things but is eminent in all things.

 

Dependent origination is completely objective.

[xabir2005]

I second that. For starters interested in Dzogchen I would suggest

 

The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen

 

p.s. just now copied wrongly,

The Cycle of Day and Night: An Essential Tibetan Text on the Practice of Dzogchen

 

-- this one is a more practical book which I also love and suggest getting. But for starters I would suggest reading The Crystal and the Way of Light first

 

 

Furthermore: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche gives Dzogchen transmission online by webcast a few times a year, and also gives talks by webcast. You can go to a ChNNR's Dzogchen community nearby if you have access to.

Edited October 7, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

I second that. For starters I would suggest

 

The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen

 

p.s. just now wrote wrongly,

The Cycle of Day and Night: An Essential Tibetan Text on the Practice of Dzogchen

 

-- this one is a more practical book which I also love. But for starters I would suggest reading The Cycle and Way of Light first

 

I would like to read Cycle of Day and Night. I have yet to read this one. I see it around at ChNNR talks every time I go, but I always end up getting something else. Though it keeps popping up.

[xabir2005]

I would like to read Cycle of Day and Night. I have yet to read this one. I see it around at ChNNR talks every time I go, but I always end up getting something else. Though it keeps popping up.

That is a very good book... you should get it! It's about integrating the recognition of rigpa 24/7. Edited October 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

That is a very good book... you should get it! It's about integrating the recognition of rigpa 24/7.

 

Wow... I have the videos of him during his daily life... he certainly does do that. I can see in his eyes! He's so great! I just think of him and...

[xabir2005]

Wow... I have the videos of him during his daily life... he certainly does do that. I can see in his eyes! He's so great! I just think of him and...

Wow... Cool..

 

Are those videos only for dzogchen community members?

 

...One taste of presence and oblivion... Why oblivion? Because absolutely no centerpoint, observer, I AM.

Sorry just to add: it's not only that, it's about the self-liberating nature of everything, thus as Thusness said 'Vividly present and gone thoroughly.'

 

In the first topic ever created by him (he only created two) titled 'Thusness is just so.' in my Buddhist forum, he wrote:

 

Good stuff! Got this from another forum.

 

http://buddhaboard.com/

 

-----------

 

..and..

 

-----------

 

Non-duality must be accompanied with the practice of impermanence like painting on the surface of a pond...vividly clear and instantly gone.

Edited October 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Wow... Cool..

 

Are those videos only for dzogchen community members?

 

Um... I'm not sure. I think so... hmmm. You can find out through... where are you in the world?

Non-duality must be accompanied with the practice of impermanence like painting on the surface of a pond...vividly clear and instantly gone.

 

I looove this quote. You've said it before... and I loved it then too. Soo clear. LOL! Like water!

[Old Man Contradiction]

cool I will get that book, it is at a not too far away book store. After reading it and then maybe the other one you suggested, I will see how my temperament relates with the teachings, and maybe my driving impulse to wake up will bring me to Dzogchen.

[goldisheavy]

No, the one taste of oblivion and presence is not a 'special experience' but is a realisation of what is already and always the case in all moments of experience, all sense doors. And that is precisely the meaning of all experiences having 'one taste'. It's all the nature of mind, luminous and empty. Why oblivion? Because absolutely no centerpoint, observer, I AM. Yet there is vivid presence all and everywhere. The presence is not different from the presence of I AM but that I AM is no more I AM than a passing sound, passing sight. There is no self apart from everything arising moment to moment. This is not a stage, this is a truth/fact of existence/dharma seal. Anatta is a dharma seal. In the thought just the thought, in the sensed just the sensed, no 'me' in terms of that, in there, or between the two. (Bahiya Sutta) There is no denying that concepts can arise, but in the thought just the thought, there is no 'me' in reference to the concept, the concept is not a 'thing' either, just luminous emptiness.

 

And that part you quoted comes from Thusness.

 

GTG to school, thats all for now.

 

You are just reinforcing my opinion that you've swallowed the medicine but the effect didn't kick in yet. You parrot the words very well but don't understand the implications yet. Since you didn't react to what I said, I don't think there is anything I can do now. You're on your own.

[Old Man Contradiction]

One more question, does Dzogchen teach a moment to moment practice? The thing I love about Maharaj is the moment to moment instruction to constantly sense that I Am. Just as Maharshi taught to constantly seek the source of the ego.

 

It seems like buddhism is basically saying that the EXPERIENCES of Advaita and Tantra Nath are good and valid as far as they go, but their interpretations are incorrect and that there is deeper truth.

[dwai]

xabir, who is saying the above quote and what doctrine do you attribute it to? I sure hope you don't attribute it to Buddhism though.

 

First, since there is no confirmatory experience, there is no way to arrive at a place where you can consider "I truly know awareness." You can still decide that you know it, but this decision is creative and playful. It's a declaration. It's not like something in your field of experience forced you to recognize awareness. It's not a matter of being presented with or experiencing irrefutable evidence.

 

If you want to say that the feeling of self is deceptive, you must, as a good Buddhist, acknowledge that the feeling of there being anything other than self is equally as deceptive, since it's two sides of the same coin. And you don't seem to be doing a good job of it.

 

If you experience oblivion and presence as of one taste, and view this as an inherently significant experience, it implies you do not see that "one taste" and "multiple tastes" are also one taste. It means you're still thinking that one taste is a special experience that is especially instructive and has the power to liberate. If you think that, it means your insight is not yet mature, as you still do not comprehend the insubstantiality of differences.

 

To put this in other words, many Buddhists strive in vain after the non-conceptual truth forgetting that the difference between conceptual and non-conceptual is a concept that they are trying to avoid or transcend. Giving blind and non-nuanced preference to non-conceptual perceptions is not really Buddhist-like. It's kind of a dogmatic deviation from the true intent of Buddha, which is actually very mysterious and not to be summarized.

 

I will post just this once (again)...

 

There is a misconception and a mistaken understanding of what Non-duality means. Like you pointed out Gold, it is mysterious and no amount of articulation/verbalization can capture it.

 

Advaita, Taoism, Non-dual Tantra all refer to this "mystery" in no uncertain terms. It is...it is mysterious...it CANNOT be accessed using rational faculties since that implies using the mind (which is by itself a phenomenon). The rational faculties will take you to the "brink" of the void. The Void itself is what remains after the phenomena are removed. Buddhism (unlike what some of our buddhist friends claim) too leads to this.

 

This cannot of course be debated or argued about, because no one can make another realize this...this is self-inquiry by dropping the lesser Self.

[Old Man Contradiction]

I will post just this once (again)...

 

There is a misconception and a mistaken understanding of what Non-duality means. Like you pointed out Gold, it is mysterious and no amount of articulation/verbalization can capture it.

 

This is true, and for example Nisargadatta uses the word nondual to express both nonduality, and that which is beyond duality and nonduality. The ambiguity can be confusing.

 

Another thing, is the teacher telling you the philosophy, or is he trying to guide you to a realization? What is said is commonly not the meaning. When told to look for the source of ego, my awareness retracts from the mind and then permeates my body, my internal space, and the external space. Sometimes my awareness shifts out of objectifying itself into "not something", I lose my self to the moment. Is this the source of the ego? no, but the instruction brings my awareness deeper.

[Vajrahridaya]

I will post just this once (again)...

 

There is a misconception and a mistaken understanding of what Non-duality means. Like you pointed out Gold, it is mysterious and no amount of articulation/verbalization can capture it.

 

Advaita, Taoism, Non-dual Tantra all refer to this "mystery" in no uncertain terms. It is...it is mysterious...it CANNOT be accessed using rational faculties since that implies using the mind (which is by itself a phenomenon). The rational faculties will take you to the "brink" of the void. The Void itself is what remains after the phenomena are removed. Buddhism (unlike what some of our buddhist friends claim) too leads to this.

 

This cannot of course be debated or argued about, because no one can make another realize this...this is self-inquiry by dropping the lesser Self.

 

Buddhism is different, always has been. Non-conceptual and conceptual realization go hand in hand, there is no transcendent void in Buddhism.

 

Never has been, never will. You'd have to drop your Advaita view to understand this.

 

Take care.

 

This is true, and for example Nisargadatta uses the word nondual to express both nonduality, and that which is beyond duality and nonduality. The ambiguity can be confusing.

 

Neither Dwai nor Nisargadatta know what they are talking about when it comes to Buddhist realization.

[Old Man Contradiction]

Neither Dwai nor Nisargadatta know what they are talking about when it comes to Buddhist realization.

 

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Dwai or Nisargadatta knowing what they are talking about when it comes to Buddhist realization.

 

Actually from what I've read, Nisargadatta has never talked about buddhism... so what are you talking about?

[Vajrahridaya]

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Dwai or Nisargadatta knowing what they are talking about when it comes to Buddhist realization.

 

I do, because their teachings are all over the internet. Dwai here and Nisargadatta's students as well as books are all over the internet.

 

Because of Nisargadatta's conclusions, as well as Dwai's... I know that they don't have the same realization as the Bodhi of the Buddha's, even intellectually much less experientially.

[xabir2005]

One more question, does Dzogchen teach a moment to moment practice?

Hi, with due respect to Nisargadatta and Dwai I have to say that as much as people like to believe, the view and realisation is actually different so I have to agree with what Vajrahridaya said above.

 

Dzogchen actually has a large host of practices which are all useful, though the only 'must' is guru yoga or remaining in rigpa.

 

And though the direct introduction can itself give some people a glimpse or realisation (you have to be of high capacity or ready for it) of rigpa, as Namdrol said there are practices

 

'Dzogchen is always non-gradual: for example, if the student does not "get it", as a reuslt of receiving direct introduction he or she can use the methods of semzin and rushan which are "self-introductions."

 

N'

 

 

...This is not correct-- once you have given people direct introduction, they also receive to things-- authorization to practice guru yoga, for "blessings" and to engage in the preliminary practices for tregchod, rushan and semzin.

 

Rushan and semzin are methods used to discover on one's own the knowledge introduced in the direct introduction.

 

Of course, I always think is it better than people have grounding in Abhidharma before they practice anything-- but that is in an ideal world...

 

 

...Rushan and Semzin are used to find the gdangs of one's rigpa after direct introduction if one did not recognize it at that time or to renew one's acquaintance with it, if you will...

 

- Namdrol

 

 

 

And as my friend Thusness told me before, I can't remember his exact words but basically he thinks Dzogchen is great because it has a history of thousands of years of texts, teachings, experienced practitioners, methods etc. Basically great resource and tradition.

[Old Man Contradiction]

cool. And I do believe that realization a la buddha is different than Nisargadatta. Do I know for certain one is wrong and the other is right? no clue...

 

but anyway, I started reading Crystal and The Way Of Light today, I already like Namkhai Norbu. By the way, how do you pronounce his name?