E&DO and The Self

[Seth Ananda]

Seth,

 

Who heard the answer?

 

 

 

Hearing, no hearer

[Vajrahridaya]

Hearing, no hearer

 

Now you're popping through! Or rather... seeing your own transparency instead of making an experience proof for an ultimate, you are making insight into experience ultimate by seeing it's total relativity.

[Seth Ananda]

Vajra, Xabir or anyone, I would love to know some good sources for learning about the Luminosity side of Emptiness, like books or links?

 

Also the experience of the Light in Theistic traditions, do you know if that would be similar or different in a Buddhist context? Is it possibly related to Empty Luminosity?

 

Also I have been reading a Longchenpa translation called You are the Eyes of the World and the text makes several references to 'Universal Creativity'.

Whats the context this is meant in?

 

Thanks again

 

Blessings!

Seth.

[C T]

Vajra, Xabir or anyone, I would love to know some good sources for learning about the Luminosity side of Emptiness, like books or links?

 

Hi Seth...

 

"The Sun of Wisdom" is a very good source. http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Wisdom-Teachings-Nagarjunas-Fundamental/dp/1570629994#reader_1570629994

 

 

 

 

Here are some readings you might find useful:

 

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/fall/emptinessandbuddhanature.html

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2004/spring/khenpo_tsultrim.html

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2006/summer/emptiness.html

 

 

"Ah! Fortunate sons and disciples gathered here,

this body of ours is impermanent

like a feather on a high mountain pass;

This mind (essence) of ours is empty and clear

like the depth of space.

 

Relax in that natural state, free of fabrication.

When mind is without any support, that is Mahamudra.

Becoming familiar with this, blend your mind with it --

This is Buddhahood!"

(Machig Labdron)

 

 

Regards and much blessings!

a.

Edited September 8, 2010 by CowTao

[gendao]

It means all things, experiences and beings arise inter-connectedly or find their existence through the fact of other things in an endless web of flow and change. It's the opposite of independent origination, which is the idea that things manifest from themselves or from a single essence or a single being that is itself without cause.

But, is it possible for the universe to all be one "Big Body"...yet empty and dependently-originated at the same time?

 

Isn't the "Big Body" theory that of independent origination?

Ok, So the Universe is a Big Body. A body that contains all the degree's of Consciousness, Bliss, Energy, right down to the most 'solid' matter.

 

It really is all one system, or one Body, and every bit is constantly changing, and cycling into new bits. Its like an energetic sorting system where the finer energy's as they emerge naturally group with the more heavenly energy's and the denser with the more earthly.

And the Subtler or Heavenly Energies that are so Powerfully 'Harmonising' on the denser fields when allowed to interact with them, they really do form the foundations of the Universe and stop everything from just falling apart, so they really are 'God Like' in some sense.

But it is all One vast changing Dependently originating System.

And it is Utterly Amazing.

And I am a utterly dependent constantly changing flux within this system.

Dependent Origination demonstrates Emptiness.

 

It means that there is nothing you can Find anywhere in the Universe that has A Fixed or eternal, separate, ongoing Nature. Nothing. Look for anything then examine it.

You will see that its existence is entirely Dependent on countless other causes. everything that lead up to the object also relys on Countless other Causes as well and so on.

Therefore nothing has its own stand Alone Existence and is thus 'Empty' of any Inherent Self or Being...

 

Empty in these terms does not mean Empty like some Void or space, but rather Empty of any actual Inherent self Existence...

 

Good Luck.

What about the Awareness?

Awareness sees what arises. Whatever appears, appears to awareness. In order for form, thought, feeling, sensation, time, space, unity and multiplicity to appear to awareness, awareness itself cannot be limited or defined by these factors. Awareness is the single subject of all objects. It is the formless that sees all form. It is the unseen seer.

 

What does this mean? It means that whatever arises within your consciousness, whatever you are aware of, is NOT seen by an "individual" or a "person" or an "I." But rather, it is seen ONLY by Awareness. Period. No exceptions! Why? Because Awareness is ALL that is.

Edited September 8, 2010 by vortex

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Also I have been reading a Longchenpa translation called You are the Eyes of the World and the text makes several references to 'Universal Creativity'.

Whats the context this is meant in?

 

Blessings!

Seth.

 

"Universal Creativity" is just dependent origination... endless and empty of inherent selfness. It's very grounded, without a ground. It's very much Samsara is Nirvana, no escape but seeing what is is.

[Vajrahridaya]

But, is it possible for the universe to all be one "Big Body"...yet empty and dependently-originated at the same time?

 

As long as seeing that the body has no essence, and that's it's essence. It's flexibility, it's vulnerability, it's emptiness is it's ability to be whatever without whatever it seems to be for a single being. Therefore, no ultimate idea of what deification is. Being is a sincere block, so real, because that block is empty of any inherent ability to bind anyway, so it can bind, thus, being is free from itself in any reference.

 

Logic gets very strange here. There are so many good books, but, it's about readiness to really hear/feel/know what is being written from the perspective of the Buddhas teaching which is the same from Hinayana to Dzogchen, just different context or levels of comprehension of the very same.

 

It's really one teaching that empties itself as it reveals itself...

Edited September 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Seth...

 

"The Sun of Wisdom" is a very good source. http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Wisdom-Teachings-Nagarjunas-Fundamental/dp/1570629994#reader_1570629994

 

 

 

 

Here are some readings you might find useful:

 

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/fall/emptinessandbuddhanature.html

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2004/spring/khenpo_tsultrim.html

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2006/summer/emptiness.html

 

 

"Ah! Fortunate sons and disciples gathered here,

this body of ours is impermanent

like a feather on a high mountain pass;

This mind (essence) of ours is empty and clear

like the depth of space.

 

Relax in that natural state, free of fabrication.

When mind is without any support, that is Mahamudra.

Becoming familiar with this, blend your mind with it --

This is Buddhahood!"

(Machig Labdron)

 

 

Regards and much blessings!

a.

 

Ah, Thanks a lot CowTao, those look very good.

blessings!

Seth.

[Seth Ananda]

But, is it possible for the universe to all be one "Big Body"...yet empty and dependently-originated at the same time?

 

 

Excuse my language there Vortex, I just meant one body as in that its all 'tied together' the highest to the lowest forever cycling and perambulating, but not that it is One thing in any fixed or permanent manner...

Big Love

Seth.

[xabir2005]

Vajra, Xabir or anyone, I would love to know some good sources for learning about the Luminosity side of Emptiness, like books or links?

It's great you're having some insights on the essential Buddhist teachings of E&DO

 

As for your question on resources on the union of luminosity and emptiness, here are some links that came up in my mind at the moment (I'm sure there are many other goods ones):

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/11/few-excerpts-from-clarifying-natural.html

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/tada.html

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html

 

http://www.wwzc.org/Jinmyo_osho/HereisNotaDirection.html

 

Also the experience of the Light in Theistic traditions, do you know if that would be similar or different in a Buddhist context? Is it possibly related to Empty Luminosity?

It depends on what it means by 'Light'. Theistic people may claim 'I have seen the light!' and think it is God, etc, but it is not, it is the A&P event, which I will elaborate more below. 'Theistic' can mean you believe you are an individual self, and there is a larger being you call God, yet there retains a sense of duality between 'me' and 'God'. This is a dualistic understanding, and those who experience A&P may retain such a dualistic understanding of God. They may think that 'they' have 'seen God' as something apart from themselves.

 

Then there are mystics who experience union, or rather they experience the fundamental unity void of subject-object division. In Hindu Advaita Vedanta it is known as the Atman that is one and indivisible with Brahman. Or, Thou Art That! (Tat Tvam Asi). This is the beginning of realizing one's true luminous essence. But at this level, the anatta, emptiness and D.O. nature is not yet discovered. That is why for these practitioners they will need to go through a series of further insights as stated in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

 

Back to lights. There is the experience of visions of bright lights, that is what I call A&P. As I wrote to Lucky7Strikes recently:

 

I wrote this to longchen two months ago:

I agree that real Presence has nothing to do with a visual sense of luminous light. I in fact have experience of very luminous (visual) lights and a resulting sense of unity years ago, however I categorize them as 'A&P' experiences according to Daniel Ingram's map, but this is not the I AM Presence.

 

My understanding of luminosity is that the sense of a bright vivid Awareness that is shining and illuminating all experience. This is different from a visual luminosity, but rather it seems that Presence is radiating everywhere and illuminating everything (nothing visual), very intensely. If that vivid luminosity is strong, even normal things like eating, walking, will feel so 'intense' that you will start smiling and there may even be tears. Just pure delight in Awareness.

 

Longchen replied 'I understand the luminousity as you have described. '

 

Also more recently I found some quotations by Dalai Lama which I think is very apt:

 

These two features - luminosity, or clarity, and knowing, or cognizance - have come to characterise 'the mental' in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist thought. Clarity here refers to the ability of mental states to reveal or reflect. Knowing, by contrast, refers to mental states' faculty to perceive or apprehend what appears.

 

All phenomena possessed of these qualities count as mental. These features are difficult to conceptualise, but then we are dealing with phenomena that are subjective and internal rather than material objects that may be measured in spatio-temporal terms.

 

Perhaps it is because of these difficulties - the limits of language in dealing with the subjective - that many of the early Buddhist texts explain the nature of consciousness in terms of metaphors such as light or a flowing river. As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminate its objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognizes. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination.

 

~ His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "The Universe in a Single Atom"

 

 

So if someone say they experienced bright lights and think they saw God, that is not the luminosity I'm talking about, rather that is what Thusness and Daniel M. Ingram calls 4th Nana, A&P (Arising and Passing).

Also I have been reading a Longchenpa translation called You are the Eyes of the World and the text makes several references to 'Universal Creativity'.

Whats the context this is meant in?

 

Thanks again

 

Blessings!

Seth.

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:

On pages 32-35 Longchenpa presents the vision. Here everything is experienced in pure and total presence - the universal creativity. Being distracted from this pure and total presence is to be caught up in what buddhists call samsara. Yet, if we investigate the discrete phenomena of experience that we are caught up in, these discrete things lose their credibility and become dreamlike.

 

Longchenpa advises us to pursue this matter until an inner light arises. He urges us to continue by investigating external reality, suggesting we will only find our experience of it. The actuality of experiencing is ephemeral and unlimited yet always full of energy, and the various experiences are merely the play, the dance of this energy.

 

This is not to say that everything is a mental state; rather, everything is ecstatic pristine awareness and its various reflections, masks, and disguises. The reader is encouraged to compare this light with the bankruptcy of mere ideas and concepts. Even the idea that everything is just a mental state is itself only an idea.

Edited September 9, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

never mind

Edited September 9, 2010 by dwai

[gendao]

As long as seeing that the body has no essence, and that's it's essence. It's flexibility, it's vulnerability, it's emptiness is it's ability to be whatever without whatever it seems to be for a single being. Therefore, no ultimate idea of what deification is. Being is a sincere block, so real, because that block is empty of any inherent ability to bind anyway, so it can bind, thus, being is free from itself in any reference.

Is the Awareness ("a formless, all-pervading consciousness") the essence of this body, though? Does not everything originate from this Awareness...and it not originate from anything else?

 

Is independent origination basically saying that as you peel the onion...you eventually get down to this core Awareness?

 

Whereas dependent origination says that no matter how much you keep peeling, you will never get down to a core? Because there is none? Just an endless stack of skins?

 

But if the Awareness is not the core - then what is it dependent upon?

[Seth Ananda]

It's great you're having some insights on the essential Buddhist teachings of E&DO

 

As for your question on resources on the union of luminosity and emptiness, here are some links that came up in my mind at the moment (I'm sure there are many other goods ones):

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/11/few-excerpts-from-clarifying-natural.html

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/tada.html

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html

 

http://www.wwzc.org/Jinmyo_osho/HereisNotaDirection.html

 

It depends on what it means by 'Light'. Theistic people may claim 'I have seen the light!' and think it is God, etc, but it is not, it is the A&P event, which I will elaborate more below. 'Theistic' can mean you believe you are an individual self, and there is a larger being you call God, yet there retains a sense of duality between 'me' and 'God'. This is a dualistic understanding, and those who experience A&P may retain such a dualistic understanding of God. They may think that 'they' have 'seen God' as something apart from themselves.

 

Then there are mystics who experience union, or rather they experience the fundamental unity void of subject-object division. In Hindu Advaita Vedanta it is known as the Atman that is one and indivisible with Brahman. Or, Thou Art That! (Tat Tvam Asi). This is the beginning of realizing one's true luminous essence. But at this level, the anatta, emptiness and D.O. nature is not yet discovered. That is why for these practitioners they will need to go through a series of further insights as stated in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

 

Back to lights. There is the experience of visions of bright lights, that is what I call A&P. As I wrote to Lucky7Strikes recently:

 

I wrote this to longchen two months ago:

I agree that real Presence has nothing to do with a visual sense of luminous light. I in fact have experience of very luminous (visual) lights and a resulting sense of unity years ago, however I categorize them as 'A&P' experiences according to Daniel Ingram's map, but this is not the I AM Presence.

 

My understanding of luminosity is that the sense of a bright vivid Awareness that is shining and illuminating all experience. This is different from a visual luminosity, but rather it seems that Presence is radiating everywhere and illuminating everything (nothing visual), very intensely. If that vivid luminosity is strong, even normal things like eating, walking, will feel so 'intense' that you will start smiling and there may even be tears. Just pure delight in Awareness.

 

Longchen replied 'I understand the luminousity as you have described. '

 

Also more recently I found some quotations by Dalai Lama which I think is very apt:

 

These two features - luminosity, or clarity, and knowing, or cognizance - have come to characterise 'the mental' in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist thought. Clarity here refers to the ability of mental states to reveal or reflect. Knowing, by contrast, refers to mental states' faculty to perceive or apprehend what appears.

 

All phenomena possessed of these qualities count as mental. These features are difficult to conceptualise, but then we are dealing with phenomena that are subjective and internal rather than material objects that may be measured in spatio-temporal terms.

 

Perhaps it is because of these difficulties - the limits of language in dealing with the subjective - that many of the early Buddhist texts explain the nature of consciousness in terms of metaphors such as light or a flowing river. As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminate its objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognizes. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination.

 

~ His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "The Universe in a Single Atom"

 

 

So if someone say they experienced bright lights and think they saw God, that is not the luminosity I'm talking about, rather that is what Thusness and Daniel M. Ingram calls 4th Nana, A&P (Arising and Passing).

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:

On pages 32-35 Longchenpa presents the vision. Here everything is experienced in pure and total presence - the universal creativity. Being distracted from this pure and total presence is to be caught up in what buddhists call samsara. Yet, if we investigate the discrete phenomena of experience that we are caught up in, these discrete things lose their credibility and become dreamlike.

 

Longchenpa advises us to pursue this matter until an inner light arises. He urges us to continue by investigating external reality, suggesting we will only find our experience of it. The actuality of experiencing is ephemeral and unlimited yet always full of energy, and the various experiences are merely the play, the dance of this energy.

 

This is not to say that everything is a mental state; rather, everything is ecstatic pristine awareness and its various reflections, masks, and disguises. The reader is encouraged to compare this light with the bankruptcy of mere ideas and concepts. Even the idea that everything is just a mental state is itself only an idea.

Ok thanks Xabir thats very helpful.

I had a feeling that Luminosity may be a different thing to the light.

So a&p you say? How stable is this 4th Jana capable of being? I ask because the light is always available Visually and in a felt sense to me. In Many theistic Traditions the Light is seen as the energy of God, but in some the distinction between the Light and God is not so clear, as the light itself seems Inteligent... I now see that as its subtle organizing nature, as in it organizes and brings harmony to what ever system it is introduced to. Like the heavenly chi...

All I do [to define how I experience it for you] is to think of Light or Heavenly chi, or just Intuit the living brilliant energy within and surounding everything, then allow myself to recieve it.

Visible light enters through my head and penetrates down through my central chanel. Its a brilliant and blissfull energy, and as i said, it allows me to heal or just expand deeply...

 

It does feel like this energy is the 'background' of everything, or the organizing part or foundational nature of the universe, as like the Sages say, Heaven Leads Earth. But I no longer believe this level of energy is somehow self existing or not Dependently Originating.

Does this explain what I mean when I ask about the light?

 

Is this a Jana? to me it just seems like I have developed my vertical connection to heavenly energy or chi? and I got there mainly through practicing the presence of God, untill I found Taoism's guarding the one meditations. I dont understand the Janas very well yet but I have been Really enjoying thusness's site and Thanks again for all the good Info over the years...

 

Big Love.

Seth.

[Birch]

Dude, why are you asking anyone else?

[Seth Ananda]

Is the Awareness ("a formless, all-pervading consciousness") the essence of this body, though? Does not everything originate from this Awareness...and it not originate from anything else?

 

Is independent origination basically saying that as you peel the onion...you eventually get down to this core Awareness?

 

Whereas dependent origination says that no matter how much you keep peeling, you will never get down to a core? Because there is none? Just an endless stack of skins?

 

But if the Awareness is not the core - then what is it dependent upon?

hehehe, I really do not know, but It seems to me E&DO frees me from even awareness, obviously without removing Awareness, but it seems to me that if there is a tiny bit in me, that really wants there to be a foundation like Awareness, then a tiny bit in me is also grasping for existence and thus not free...

 

I would love to hear Xabirs take on Greg Goodes perspective in relationship to you question. It seems to me so far that He really doesnt leave much if anything to grasp with his descriptions of awareness. Oh wait there is the clinging! my mind still would say awareness is the base... so it subtly clings to being something... lol

Blessings.

Seth.

[Seth Ananda]

Dude, why are you asking anyone else?

Hi Kate

I know what the experiences are like for me but Ill always welcome another view. And when someone says "oh, thats the 4th Jhana, A&P" I want to be sure they are properly understanding my origional stance, and also I do want to understand the Jhanas properly so I wish to avoid confusion and gain clarity...

Blessings!

Seth.

[Vajrahridaya]

Is the Awareness ("a formless, all-pervading consciousness") the essence of this body, though? Does not everything originate from this Awareness...and it not originate from anything else?

 

Is independent origination basically saying that as you peel the onion...you eventually get down to this core Awareness?

 

Whereas dependent origination says that no matter how much you keep peeling, you will never get down to a core? Because there is none? Just an endless stack of skins?

 

But if the Awareness is not the core - then what is it dependent upon?

 

Consciousness arises dependent upon the coming together of the main 5 elements into a sentient being on a much subtler level than even the brain. In every moment there is a kind of fermentation due to the 5 elements complicating through mixing and interconnecting into fabrications and volition, this process has no beginning or source but is caused every moment by ignorance until enlightenment. After enlightenment the cause is compassion as the unconscious becomes the Dharmakaya for the sake of all sentient beings, the subconscious becomes the Sambhogakaya for the sake of endless sentient beings, and the conscious manifest aspect becomes the Nirmanakaya for the sake of serving all beings endlessly, over and over again as a manifestation of the bliss of liberation.

 

One's mind stream and personal existence is dependent upon all the endless personal and impersonal existences as in other sentient beings and inanimate objects. But, consciousness is the subtlest personal element, not because it's a source of everything, but because it's one's own personal source of bondage or liberation. Awareness becomes omnipresent through realization of the Dharmakaya which is basically the realization of the emptiness of all things and non-things. So, enlightened awareness is an insight into emptiness and the elements of being and not a source of all existence.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

It seems to me so far that He really doesnt leave much if anything to grasp with his descriptions of awareness. Oh wait there is the clinging! my mind still would say awareness is the base... so it subtly clings to being something... lol

Blessings.

Seth.

 

Even when I finally had some small glimpses of what E&DO meant, I still found myself clinging over and over again to consciousness as supreme and the source with experiences that fortified this like a habitual cycle that was immensely blissful!

 

I would think, "Oh these Buddhists just haven't experienced the Self of all, that's why they say these things."

 

But, when I sat for the first time in front of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and chanted the "Song of the Vajra" with him and the group of a couple hundred people in NYC, I popped. It was so deep and amazing! I felt the depth of compassion of this guy like I've never experienced in anyone else! I had a flash of insight into the meaning of the jhanas and remembered when I experienced them and how I clung to the formless ones as God. I saw the meaning of the 6 realms and 31 planes of existence and how they co-related with the jhanas on an experiential level. I saw right through everything, even myself. I felt so luminously clear and totally free, like walking light afterwords. When I stood in front of him, we connected eye to eye on such an incredible level and he said some things that co-related with what I was thinking just as I was about to say these things, he was answering my questions out loud as I was just about to say them, like one step ahead of me. I almost fell off the stage when he blessed me and my mala and I had a few more visions with open eyes like seeing into many dimensions at the same time. Anyway...

 

I finally only got it, got it on an unmistakable level through experiencing rigpa through his transmission. It was incredible... now I've forgotten what I was going to say I'm transporting myself back there. It's like a flood!

 

Ok, yes... I realized how this clinging to the formless aspects of consciousness as a God leads to a subtle pride. I realized that this is what bothered me on a subtle level all those years about Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, because these enligtened beings experience this kind of "Crowning" of being one with the "King" of all and this leads to various excuses such as, "It's all Gods will." This actually gets in the way of deepening compassion and compassionate action because when something happens or someone doesn't get it, it leads to this idea that, "Well, it's gods will that they don't get it and I'm one with God so it's fine." Thus the level of refinement of the teaching that helps people doesn't seem to be nearly as clear in any other path but in the Buddhist path because of this depth of compassion that transcends any sense of pride of existence, or the excuse of believing in a supreme will of all. For me, these beings are great and have very high attainments, but the insight into the nature of all things and beings is not complete, so the constant state of compassion is not complete either, thus the manifestation of the path they teach is also not complete.

 

It's somewhat difficult to put into words. I feel like I'm kind of failing. As I find the experience of this fact so deep and profound that I want to unpack so many concepts as to fill a big book for the sake of clarity. But, I'm not that awesome yet.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Ok thanks Xabir thats very helpful.

I had a feeling that Luminosity may be a different thing to the light.

So a&p you say? How stable is this 4th Jana capable of being?

Not jhana. The 4th nana is A&P. Nana means insight knowledge. Jhana means absorption. It is different.

 

However, 4th nana corresponds with 2nd Vipassana Jhana. 2nd Insight absorption. However, usually Jhana is used to mean Samatha jhanas, pure concentration absorptions. Samatha jhanas on its own accord does not lead to liberation. As for how stable are nanas, nanas are usually unstable.

 

As Daniel M. Ingram puts it:

There is a lot of confusion on the differences between concentration practices and insight practices. This may be caused in part by the “Mushroom Factor,” or may be due in part to other factors, such as concentration practice being easier than insight practices and distinctly more pleasant most of the time. Concentration practices (samatha or samadhi practices) are meditation on a concept, an aggregate of many transient sensations, whereas insight practice is meditation on the many transient sensations just as they are. When doing concentration practices, one purposefully tries to fix or freeze the mind in a specific state, called an “absorption,” “jhana” or “dyana.” While reality cannot be frozen in this way, the illusion of solidity and stability certainly can be cultivated, and this is concentration practice.

 

Insight practices are designed to penetrate the Three Illusions of permanence, satisfactoriness and separate self so as to attain freedom. (N.B., the illusion of satisfactoriness has to do with the false sense that continuing to mentally create the illusion of a separate, permanent self will be satisfactory or helpful, and is not referring to some oppressive and fun-denying angst trip). Insight practices (various types of vipassana, dzogchen, zazen, etc.) lead to the progressive stages of the progress of insight. Insight practices tend to be difficult and somewhat disconcerting, as they are designed to deconstruct our deluded and much cherished views of the world and ourselves, though they can sometimes be outrageously blissful for frustratingly short periods.

 

A&P usually comes with a visual experience of bright lights.

I ask because the light is always available Visually and in a felt sense to me. In Many theistic Traditions the Light is seen as the energy of God, but in some the distinction between the Light and God is not so clear, as the light itself seems Inteligent... I now see that as its subtle organizing nature, as in it organizes and brings harmony to what ever system it is introduced to. Like the heavenly chi...

All I do [to define how I experience it for you] is to think of Light or Heavenly chi, or just Intuit the living brilliant energy within and surounding everything, then allow myself to recieve it.

Visible light enters through my head and penetrates down through my central chanel. Its a brilliant and blissfull energy, and as i said, it allows me to heal or just expand deeply...

 

It does feel like this energy is the 'background' of everything, or the organizing part or foundational nature of the universe, as like the Sages say, Heaven Leads Earth. But I no longer believe this level of energy is somehow self existing or not Dependently Originating.

Does this explain what I mean when I ask about the light?

I see. Though it could be A&P related... I think this may not necessarily be ordinary A&Ps induced through Vipassana practices.

 

This reminds me of a recent post by Longchen or Simpo, who is also another highly enlightened moderator in my Buddhist forum apart from Thusness.

 

He wrote that at the earlier stage, one can think that he/she can be recieving information, blessing etc from a higher source that is beyond himself/herself. We may also use visualisation to imagine a Light that will descend upon our body.. blessing and illuminating us. We will think that we are recieving information from some outside higher sources. During those times, i had visions of a source light illuminating me...

 

On hindsight, those are interpreted visions... not direct experiences.

 

He also wrote:

 

...real' I AM Presence' stage will reveal much about the non-local/all-pervading aspect of reality.... unlike a pseudo experience of visualising/imagining a light that overlight us. Sometimes, the I AM stage may also reveal the luminous/light aspect as well. But for my case, the luminousity aspect was experienced later. IMO, it depends on how that stage was experienced. IMO, Luminousity is experienced due to the deconstruction of perception. IMO, Non-locality is experienced due to the total suspension of mental formation/thoughts.

 

Non-dual will reveal the insight that all along the self does not exist in a concrete manner. It will first be experienced as if experiences are 'flat'... ha ha... i dunno how to describe. In non-dual, there is a gradual maturing process (consisting of distinctive stage of insights)... where the self aspect gets better understood. In the early stage, we may try to dissolve or get rid of the self. In the later state, we begin to realise that the getting rid act is also a sense of self. Later on stage, there is an 'immediate' realisation...which i dunno how to describe and best experienced for oneself.

 

Will like to add that although 'letting go' is not the actual non-duality experience, it is an important part of practice. Slowly and gradually, the practice of letting go helps in creating gaps for the insights to occur.

 

From these posts, one derives two different experiences:

 

1) The experience brought about by visualizing a divine light spreading over us, intuiting a higher source beyond us. Notice that there is still a separation: a small self, and a larger soul/God beyond... still subtly dualistic.

 

2) The direct 'I AM' experience and realization. The directness of perception gives rise to a pure self-felt certainty of existence and being. A non-dual sense of being - there is no 'me' experiencing 'that' - just I AM, still, doubtless, unmoving, self-shining presence-awareness. At this stage, one can also experience intense luminosity - the intensity of clarity, presence, awareness as the background sense of beingness as well as in all sense perceptions. An intensity of aliveness, intelligence, clarity, vitality. One may also experience an all-pervasiveness, as if Awareness or Presence is not located anywhere and pervades all spaces. This, as Simpo says, is the 'real I AM Presence'/'direct experience' in contrast to the 'pseudo experience of visualising/imagining a light that overlight us'/'interpreted visions'. This is also the luminosity I'm talking about, it is the true, direct, non-conceptual realization of pure presence.

 

If I hazard a guess, I think you may have experienced the number 1) experience, as well as certain aspects of the I AM Presence like the vitality and intelligence aspect of the I AM experience. However, not sure if you have had the 'I AM realization'. The "I AM realization" is the doubtless certainty of beingness and existence, the pure presence, as one's undeniable true essence. There is no subject-object division there at all. There is no 'I' here and 'God' over there. "You" are not "experiencing God", you ARE God. There is just This, pure-consciousness-existence, and through this direct realization, one will have an inner conviction of one's luminosity by having touched one's innermost essence.

 

The difference between the I AM experience and the I AM realization is mentioned in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Is this a Jana?

No, luminosity is not jhana state. Luminosity is simply the essence of mind/experience. All experiences are luminous in essence and empty in nature. Luminosity and emptiness are not talking about the same thing, they are different 'aspects', but they are also inseparable. One is vivid brilliant awareness, one is it's ungraspability, unlocatability, D.O. nature.

 

As Thusness replied Gozen:

 

24. RE: The mind and the watcher

Apr 7 2009, 5:46 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 7 2009, 5:57 PM EDT

Gozen: "I AM: Paradoxically, one feels at the same time that one is both essentially untouched by all phenomena and yet intimately at one with them. As the Upanishad says "Thou are That."

 

1.a. Body and Mind as Constructs: Another way to look at this is to observe that all compound things -- including one's own body and mind -- are **objects to awareness.** That is to say, from the "fundamental" point of view of primordial awareness, or True Self, even body and mind are **not self.**"

 

Thusness: Ha Gozen, I re-read the post and saw **not self**, I supposed u r referring to anatta then I have to disagree...:-). However I agree with what that u said from the Vedanta (True Self) standpoint. But going into it can make it appears unnecessary complex.

 

As a summary, I see anatta as understanding the **transience** as Awareness by realizing that there is no observer apart from the observed. Effectively it is referring to the experience of in seeing, only scenery, no seer. In hearing, only sound, no hearer. The experience is quite similar to “Thou are That” except that there is no sinking back to a Source as it is deemed unnecessary. Full comfort is found in resting completely as the transience without even the slightest need to refer back to a source. For the source has always been the manifestation due to its emptiness nature.

 

All along there is no dust alighting on the Mirror; the dust has always been the Mirror. We fail to recognize the dust as the Mirror when we are attached to a particular speck of dust and call it the ”Mirror”; When a particular speck of dust becomes special, then all other pristine happening that are self-mirroring suddenly appears dusty.

 

Anything further, we will have to take it private again. :-)

 

to me it just seems like I have developed my vertical connection to heavenly energy or chi? and I got there mainly through practicing the presence of God, untill I found Taoism's guarding the one meditations. I dont understand the Janas very well yet but I have been Really enjoying thusness's site and Thanks again for all the good Info over the years...

 

Big Love.

Seth.

Glad you enjoyed the blog. I probably wouldn't have time to update much for the next two years, as I will be enlisting into mandatory army on Tuesday. Edited September 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

[Seth Ananda]

Consciousness arises dependent upon the coming together of the main 5 elements into a sentient being on a much subtler level than even the brain. In every moment there is a kind of fermentation due to the 5 elements complicating through mixing and interconnecting into fabrications and volition, this process has no beginning or source but is caused every moment by ignorance until enlightenment. After enlightenment the cause is compassion as the unconscious becomes the Dharmakaya for the sake of all sentient beings, the subconscious becomes the Sambhogakaya for the sake of endless sentient beings, and the conscious manifest aspect becomes the Nirmanakaya for the sake of serving all beings endlessly, over and over again as a manifestation of the bliss of liberation.

 

One's mind stream and personal existence is dependent upon all the endless personal and impersonal existences as in other sentient beings and inanimate objects. But, consciousness is the subtlest personal element, not because it's a source of everything, but because it's one's own personal source of bondage or liberation. Awareness becomes omnipresent through realization of the Dharmakaya which is basically the realization of the emptiness of all things and non-things. So, enlightened awareness is an insight into emptiness and the elements of being and not a source of all existence.

Groovy! do you have any good links for understanding the Dharmakaya nature in great detail. I want to be really sure what it means when I see it fly bye in the various Buddhist texts...

Thanks

Seth

[xabir2005]

Thanks for all that

I defiantly had 3, the I AM realisation many times. I used 1 and 2 as my path into 3.

And hooray for Annata! Freedom from the Whole!

Great Blessings for your enlistment period.

Seth.

Sounds good Thanks for your blessings.

[Vajrahridaya]

Groovy! do you have any good links for understanding the Dharmakaya nature in great detail. I want to be really sure what it means when I see it fly bye in the various Buddhist texts...

Thanks

Seth

 

I honestly don't know perfectly well of a single example that I can direct you too, though I wish I did. My understanding is both based on experience and having read many different sources of description from many books as well as my long and arduous arguments with Lappon Namdrol which lasted 3 years. Boy did I argue! But, I remembered the gist of everything he said without specifics! I know Xabir will have lots of great quotes as he's the quote master. Which is a compliment by the way Xabir. I wish I had that type of mind. I could quote endlessly from Hindu texts as my mind was more that way with Hinduism, but when I came to Buddhism, my studying is not all that. In fact, I know that Xabir has texts to quote from that deal specifically with how one should intellectually understand the Dharmakaya as I've read them before.

 

I'm going to give it a try though...

http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_dharmakaya.htm

In a spirit of ecumenism or harmony, many people like to believe that the Dharmakaya is the same or equivalent to God.

 

"However, the Dharmakaya is not to be understood as a Divine Being, or an Absolutely Existent Permanent Entity.

 

The problem we are facing, as students in the Kagyu lineage, it seems, is the seeming contradiction between the teachings of the second and third turnings of the Dharmachakra. Briefly put, the second turning emphasizes the emptiness of self and phenomena, the absolute nonexistence of any permanent, unchanging essence. This is the Madhayamaka view. Yet, the third turning, as exemplified by the Uttaratantra Shastra, espouses a permanent, unchanging Buddha Nature, inherent in all sentient beings, which is both the cause for their eventual enlightenment, and the fruit of said enlightenment.

 

It must be understood that these teachings, though apparently contradictory, are actually not. The Dharmakaya, or Truth Body of the Buddha, is empty. It is beyond conceptual elaboration, and cannot be posited as a Thing, a Being, or anything else. It is really beyond existence and non-existence. Yet it is posited as "having qualities," and of being of the nature of "clear light."

It must be understood that these two points of view are not mutually

exclusive.

 

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (Buddha Nature. Snow Lion Pub., 2000) states,

 

"The terms "dharmadhatu," "suchness," and "absolute truth" are synonymous in that both "dharmadhatu" and "suchness" denote emptiness and the absolute truth is the way everything exists, which is also emptiness.

 

In the context dealt with here, which is to say in the (Shentong) view, this emptiness is to be understood mainly in the sense of ultimate emptiness or the ultimate expanse. This is the nature of mind or the way the mind truly exists, being the inseparable union of spaciousness and awareness or of emptiness and clear light.

 

According to the Madhyamaka, however, that nature of mind is to be understood solely from the point of view that all phenomena do not truly exist. In this view it is nothing but empty in the sense of not being accessible to any conceptualization.

 

It is very important to gain a proper understanding of these two different

views. What is mainly taught in the system to which the Uttaratantra Shastra belongs is the aspect of awareness (Tib. rig pa) or clear light (Tib. od gsal), whereas in the system of the Madhyamaka the aspect of emptiness in the sense of freedom from conceptual elaboration is exclusively taught.

 

If one understands well what is meant by the inseparable union of emptiness and clear light, one comes very close to the path of the Vajrayana (305.)"

 

So, although the views can be called different, it appears that a union, or synthesis, of aspects of these views is to be desired.

 

Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche also comments on the difference between the Hindu notion of eternal atman and the Mahayana idea of Buddha Nature:

 

"There is a great difference between "true self" as taught

in the Hindu traditions and as taught in the Mahayana system. In the first sense the term "true self" denotes a self that is eternal, unique, and independent. "True self" as taught in the Uttaratantra Shastra is equivalent to the state of peace in terms of complete freedom from any conceptual elaboration ... . The Mahayana system does not hold to the view of an eternal, unique, and independent self (343-4)."

 

If another tradition explains the Absolute in terms similar to Rinpoche's explanation of mind, which is after all the Dharmakaya in its absolute nature, then I join hands and prostrate to such a tradition.

 

... meanwhile, I rejoice in those who practice any path which leads away from suffering and towards peace and compassion, to whatever extent."

 

~ Cone to the Kagyu email list, 2002. [The spacing of Kh. Tsultrim text is edited for easier online reading.]

 

Some other links...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmak%C4%81ya

 

Padmasambhava, Karma Lingpa, Gyurme Dorje, Graham Coleman and Thupten Jinpa (2005: p.452) define "Buddha-body of Reality", which is a rendering of the Tibetan chos-sku and the Sanskrit dharmakāya, as:

 

...the ultimate nature or essence of the enlightened mind [byang-chub sems], which is uncreated (skye-med), free from the limits of conceptual elaboration (spros-pa'i mtha'-bral), empty of inherent existence (rang-bzhin-gyis stong-pa), naturally radiant, beyond duality and spacious like the sky. The intermediate state of the time of death ('chi-kha'i bar-do) is considered to be an optimum time for the realisation of the Buddha-body of Reality.

 

Also... you might like to read these books. I haven't yet read my copy of the first...

 

Heart Drops of Dharmakaya

 

But, I've read this one below a couple of times...

 

Crystal and the Way of Light

 

Through these two texts you should be able to get a really good understanding of the experience of the Dharmakaya as these two texts talk very much on an experiential level and not merely philosophically. I know Xabir as well has read a number of Dzogchen texts and can quote from some as well.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

[xabir2005]

Vajra, you're great at quoting too haha... The books I've read are very limited.

 

Anyway here's a great talk: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/9547/

 

It's about the union of luminosity and emptiness/D.O. and anatta.

Edited September 11, 2010 by xabir2005