Make a sharp distinction between awareness and mind (thoughts)

[ben]

[Vajrahridaya]

[pennyofheaven]

This is still the dualistic I AM phase of experience...

 

See Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

 

 

The opening poster asked for distinctions. They are distinctions. Distinctions are duality.

 

So what is your point? Care to elaborate?

[ben]

The spread of Thusness began with a doctrine hatched in the warrior cast of India. It goes against the will of the body (kidneys) to deconstruct and dematerilze. Way-making is the creative process that allows humanity to achieve the natural grace of longevity. People want to survive, that's it. Thusness is not correct cognition of samsara, it is actually a gradual emasculation process.

[xabir2005]

The opening poster asked for distinctions. They are distinctions. Distinctions are duality.

 

So what is your point? Care to elaborate?

Such distinctions are false and illusory, though not seen through, even after transcendental glimpses of Presence (which under the influence of dualistic tendencies/view will in fact solidify the sense of a Witness apart from the witnessed) such as Thusness Stage 1. Although such distinctions are made in the earlier phase of one's practice in order to have a glimpse of non-conceptual Presence, they are dropped after non-dual insight arises.

 

In reality, there is no distinctions, there is no duality. As J Krishnamurti says, "the observer is the observed". Which is to say, there is no observer and observed. This is only realized in Thusness Stage 4 and 5.

 

As Buddha teaches (which I and many have realized directly), in seeing just the seen, no seer. In hearing just the heard, no hearer. In thinking just thoughts, no watcher or thinker.

 

Dzogchen Master Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:

 

"...In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought..."

 

"...all that is necessary is to maintain pure presence of mind, without falling into the dualistic situation of there being an observing subject perceiving an observed object..."

 

Thrangu Rinpoche:

 

"Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish..."

 

(continue reading this at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/nature-of-thought.html )

 

 

14th century Mahamudra Master, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

 

"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.

 

"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.

 

(continue reading this at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/11/few-excerpts-from-clarifying-natural.html )

 

 

Also see my older articles such as: Gap Between Thoughts, Thought Between Gaps

Edited January 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

The spread of Thusness began with a doctrine hatched in the warrior cast of India. It goes against the will of the body (kidneys) to deconstruct and dematerilze. Way-making is the creative process that allows humanity to achieve the natural grace of longevity. People want to survive, that's it. Thusness is not correct cognition of samsara, it is actually a gradual emasculation process.

 

Well, there is no proof of your hypothesis in the way Buddhas manifest themselves. They certainly aren't emasculated in their actions. Even in their longevity. In fact, I dare say that your hypothesis is actually pretty ignorant and lacks intuitive study, not even that, it's just highly underinformed! "Emasculated!?" :lol:

 

"39 The Siddha Babhaha, The Free Lover

 

Pleasure! pleasure! unconditional pleasure!

Unconditional desireless pleasure!

Every thought-form perceived as pleasure!

0 what unattainable secret pleasure!

 

Babhaha, Prince of Dhanjur, was intoxicated by the thrills of sensual pleasure. One day he spoke with a wise yogin who had come begging at the palace. The yogin inspired faith in him, and he asked for precepts to assist him in his sexual practice.

 

"Consummation, the samaya, is the fountain of all mystical experience; the Guru is the source of all success," were the precepts the yogin gave him. He then bestowed the initiation that transfers grace upon the prince, and instructed him in the fulfillment yoga technique of psychic channels, vital energies and seed essence:

 

In the lotus mandala of your partner,

A superior consort,

Mingle your white seed

With her ocean of red seed.

Then absorb, raise and diffuse the elixir

And your ecstacy will never end.

Then to raise the pleasure beyond pleasure

Visualize it inseparable from emptiness.

 

After twelve years of profound experience in this technique, the prince found that the obscurations of his vision had vanished, and he gained siddhi. He sang:

 

As the king of geese

Separates water from milk

The Guru's precepts

Draw up the ambrosial elixir

 

He served his disciples well before eventually attaining bodily the Dakini's Paradise.

 

Sadhana

 

Babhaha is taught the fulfillment process technique called Eternal Delight in the Six Yogas of Naropa. The same result can be achieved with or without a partner, using someone else's body or using one's own body.109 The practice for the celibate yogin is described in Nalinapa's legend (40), and such use of sexual energy is considered more desirable in the Tibetan tradition. But the well known axiom "No mahamudra without karma-mudra," where the female consort is the karma-mudra, and the central place that this yoga holds amongst the fulfillment stage topics, indicates its significance. The tradition defines "the superior consort" in physical terms, employing the criteria of the Indian science of erotics, as explained in texts such as the Kamasutra: the padmini is the best partner. Regarding the yoga itself, psychic channels carry the vital energies that consist of seed-essence; and the essence of the yoga is the skill in controlling the subtle energies. First, energy is sent downward to the sexual center; second, with perfect control, male and female energy is intermingled under the power of retention; third, the elixir of pleasure and emptiness united is raised, like a goose drawing water out of milk, up the central channel; and fourth, it is diffused throughout the psycho-organism by the constantly bifurcating "capillary" channels. With the withdrawal of "pleasure and emptiness indivisible" up the central channel, the four levels of joy are experienced at the four main cakras, and by saturation of the body-mind, eternal delight is achieved, and ultimately rainbow body is possible. The technical description of the technique should not obscure the sine qua non of a "spiritual relationship" between the yogin and his consort. Although the female body is being used as a source of "nectar," without a totally open, empathetic and responsive relationship, the yoga will fail. Further, desirelessness is the key to success, and insofar as such a state cannot be attained by striving, the pleasure that results from consummation is "unattainable." Finally, as Babhaha's Guru implies at the beginning, this practice is physically and mentally dangerous and requires a skillful guide. The samaya he mentions can be interpreted in several ways, all of them equally vital: it may be maintaining the relative vows and commitments of the vajrayana, or of this specific practice; it may be the samaya, the body, speech and mind union, of Guru and Dakini where Vajrayogini is the Dakini; or it may be the fully empathetic responsiveness of yogin and yogini in their sexual encounter.

 

Historiography

 

The meaning of Babhaha can only be inferred from the Tibetan translation "He who draws water from milk" (T. Chu las 'o ma len), referring to the yogin's ability to suck up the essential female bodhicitta from the intermingling of nectars in the bhaga mandala into the central channel. There is an eastern belief that geese have the facility of sucking out water from milk, thus keeping the milkman honest. Babhaha, which could be onomatopoeic, is also spelled Bhalaha, Bhamva, Babhahi, Baha and Bapabhati. His home town of Dhanjur is unidentified, as is his Guru."

 

-translated by Keith Dowman

 

I see your theory as merely your theory based nothing but mis-interpretation of self gathered information.

 

Of course a Buddhas goal is not merely longevity, even though plenty of them had it and have it. Because they see beyond or through the body, they don't see the passing away of the flesh as the end of their personal mind-stream.

 

 

"Emasculated" :lol:

 

Oh Ben, you are good for a laugh my man.

[RongzomFan]

Distinctions are duality.

 

 

 

Wrong

 

The distinction between awareness and mind is not duality.

 

The mind is dualistic in nature. If you go beyond the mind...

 

 

From the perspective of Dzogchen, the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is said to be pure, all-encompassing, primordial awareness or naturally occurring timeless awareness. This "intrinsic awareness" has no form of its own and yet is capable of perceiving, experiencing, reflecting, or expressing all form. It does so without being affected by those forms in any ultimate, permanent way. This pristine awareness is what Dzogchenpas refer to as rigpa. The analogy given by Dzogchen masters is that one's nature is like a mirror which reflects with complete openness but is not affected by the reflections, or like a crystal ball that takes on the colour of the material on which it is placed without itself being changed. Having distinguished rigpa from mind, one is not distracted by the mind, i.e. one does not let thoughts lead onself. This allows thoughts to naturally self-liberate without avoidance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

[RongzomFan]

Its not really awareness, its more primordial purity, but I don't have the patience to go into that.

[Aaron]

Hello Starjumper,

 

When I say words are all we have, I echo the teachings of many masters (not that I am one), that have understood that people commonly need encouragement, and that in order to encourage people, one oftentimes needs to express some sort of semblance of an idea to them and in many cases the only way to do that is to express the idea in words. My point is that oftentimes the message is not on the surface, but lays below the surface. It is not necessarily in the silence between words, but in the entirety of what's being said.

 

In regards to your comment about awareness, I'm not sure if I follow completely, but I do agree that there is a type of awareness that exists only when the mind is silent and thoughts do not cloud it. In that regard, many people do have this illusion that what they're experiencing is a deep spiritual awareness, when in fact it's more akin to an epiphany.

 

Aaron

Edited January 10, 2011 by Twinner

[pennyofheaven]

Expanding on this thought, how about:

 

Awareness.... The observation without the element of Time. In our meditations when we're in that crystal

globe of awareness, there is no movement from point A to point B, perhaps it's the quantum

physics analogy of particle vs. wave. There is supreme clarity, but it is not quantifiable

by any of our standard measurements, it is merely a Knowing, not a measurement.

 

Mind, thoughts....

The mind is linear when conscious but not mindful. It thinks one word after the other. (Actually, after I did learn how to

actually 'think', I realized that what I had been doing for my entire life was not thinking at

all, but Ruminating.) Maybe this is the wave aspect of the quantum phyics analogy.

 

Yes I can see that expansion. Although I am yet to fully understand particle and wave theory.

[pennyofheaven]

[pennyofheaven]

Wrong

 

The distinction between awareness and mind is not duality.

 

The mind is dualistic in nature. If you go beyond the mind...

 

 

From the perspective of Dzogchen, the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is said to be pure, all-encompassing, primordial awareness or naturally occurring timeless awareness. This "intrinsic awareness" has no form of its own and yet is capable of perceiving, experiencing, reflecting, or expressing all form. It does so without being affected by those forms in any ultimate, permanent way. This pristine awareness is what Dzogchenpas refer to as rigpa. The analogy given by Dzogchen masters is that one's nature is like a mirror which reflects with complete openness but is not affected by the reflections, or like a crystal ball that takes on the colour of the material on which it is placed without itself being changed. Having distinguished rigpa from mind, one is not distracted by the mind, i.e. one does not let thoughts lead onself. This allows thoughts to naturally self-liberate without avoidance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

 

Perhaps you might like to see read my response to xabir2005?

 

So making distinctions is not duality? I understand that there are no distinctions but making them is duality.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So making distinctions is not duality? I understand that there are no distinctions but making them is duality.

 

Only if you experience it as such. Making distinctions and not making distinctions is as non-dual or dual as you experience it.

[pennyofheaven]

Only if you experience it as such. Making distinctions and not making distinctions is as non-dual or dual as you experience it.

 

Ok if thats the way you see it.

[Marblehead]

Make a sharp distinction between awareness and mind (thoughts).

 

There is no distinction between the two to be made.

 

Awareness is totally dependent on mind. No mind, no awareness.

[RongzomFan]

There is no distinction between the two to be made.

 

Awareness is totally dependent on mind. No mind, no awareness.

 

 

I come from Dzogchen standpoint. Rigpa is beyond mind. Dzogchen is the only system that does NOT use mind.

[Marblehead]

I come from Dzogchen standpoint. Rigpa is beyond mind. Dzogchen is the only system that does NOT use mind.

 

I acknowledge what you are saying. Of course, I have a problem with it. Hehehe.

[Vajrahridaya]

I come from Dzogchen standpoint. Rigpa is beyond mind. Dzogchen is the only system that does NOT use mind.

 

I think it's merely semantics. I think Rigpa is just showing a person through experience that mind does not inherently exist and is merely a relative existence and this awareness is merely seeing through itself, thus self liberating and is then called as a convention, Rigpa (self liberated awareness), which is basically just mind liberated from itself.

[RongzomFan]

I think it's merely semantics. I think Rigpa is just showing a person through experience that mind does not inherently exist and is merely a relative existence and this awareness is merely seeing through itself, thus self liberating and is then called as a convention, Rigpa (self liberated awareness), which is basically just mind liberated from itself.

 

 

Loppon Namdrol used to say all sorts of things like rigpa is beyond mind, utterly beyond mind, distinguishing rigpa from mind etc. etc.

 

 

I really think Dzoghchen is beyond mind.

[Vajrahridaya]

Loppon Namdrol used to say all sorts of things like rigpa is beyond mind, utterly beyond mind, distinguishing rigpa from mind etc. etc.

 

 

I really think Dzoghchen is beyond mind.

 

Sure, I still think that they say this in order to help mind let go of itself though. What else is going to recognize but mind? It's just semantics really. Experiencing Rigpa is... nothing to be talked about and everything to be said.

 

Mind in Buddhism is generally defined as ripples, and activity, so in this sense... yes! But really... what could rigpa be beyond if nothing is established to begin with?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

Sure, I still think that they say this in order to help mind let go of itself though. What else is going to recognize but mind? It's just semantics really. Experiencing Rigpa is... nothing to be talked about and everything to be said.

 

 

Well my understanding of the mind in the Dzogchen context means thoughts.

 

its really about nirvanic primordial purity (crystal ball or mirror) versus samsaric impure mind.

Edited January 11, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

Well my understanding of the mind in the Dzogchen context means thoughts.

 

its really about nirvanic primordial purity (crystal ball or mirror) versus samsaric impure mind.

 

Sure, I agree then.

 

I think though as one starts to really experience integration, that both distinction and non-distinction cease to have real distinction from each other.

 

Thoughts and rigpa, mind and rigpa, impurity and purity slowly cease to have real relevance on an experiential level. Of course on a practical level, there still is, but this also ceases to become very densely different from the prier.

 

I agree though, there is lhundrup. I'm not disagreeing with you and Namdrol is one of my main Dzogchen mentors.

[RongzomFan]

I agree though, there is lhundrup. I'm not disagreeing with you and Namdrol is one of my main Dzogchen mentors.

 

 

No, lhungrub only refers to the esoteric practices that lead to rainbow body.

 

But yes, in practice Dzogchen is beyond words views etc.

Edited January 11, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

No, lhungrub only refers to the esoteric practices that lead to rainbow body.

 

But yes, in practice Dzogchen is beyond words views etc.

 

lhundrup just means primordial purity or spontaneous presence.

[pennyofheaven]

There is no distinction between the two to be made.

 

Awareness is totally dependent on mind. No mind, no awareness.

 

I do agree. You cannot have one without the other. You can however synchronize the two.

 

In saying that they are not really two haha

Edited January 11, 2011 by pennyofheaven