Vajrahridaya Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) At the end of the day this is not about lineage, the Buddha, or any of that. It's about you figuring out your existence. We are generally blinded by our own blind spots, unaware where we are missing awareness, which is why it takes an objective viewer much farther along on the path to the equal nature that is in us all, to help us. You need lineage, GIH needs lineage. All this talk about not needing it is just intellectual ego building. It takes real humility to bow to lineage that knows already what it is you wish to know about yourself, not fake humility. If done with fake humility, then a person is learning nothing about the empty nature of their self "figuring out your existence." If we are all connected and equal in emptiness, that should not be too hard of a pill to swallow. If not, then one might stay rigid in this idea that "I am going at it alone finding out my existence because I own myself." Egotrip. Edited July 20, 2011 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 20, 2011 None of Vimalamitra or Namdrol's clarifications clash with what me or gold have been saying. If all-creating-kind is mind that does not recognize its nature. Than mind that recognizes its nature of emptiness is rigpa. Yes, but it's individual minds, not all one subsuming mind of all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 20, 2011 It depends on their mastery of samadhi. Terrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Yes, but it's individual minds, not all one subsuming mind of all. Yes, and that's what we've been saying too.... It's like you are so paranoid of Hindu Self paradigm you just assume everything that's slightly different from Buddhist terms into it. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 20, 2011 We are generally blinded by our own blind spots, unaware where we are missing awareness, which is why it takes an objective viewer much farther along on the path to the equal nature that is in us all, to help us. You need lineage, GIH needs lineage. All this talk about not needing it is just intellectual ego building. It takes real humility to bow to lineage that knows already what it is you wish to know about yourself, not fake humility. If done with fake humility, then a person is learning nothing about the empty nature of their self "figuring out your existence." If we are all connected and equal in emptiness, that should not be too hard of a pill to swallow. If not, then one might stay rigid in this idea that "I am going at it alone finding out my existence because I own myself." Egotrip. Just because you are in need of a lineage does not mean everyone else does! Preach! Preach! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 None of Vimalamitra or Namdrol's clarifications clash with what me or gold have been saying. If all-creating-kind is mind that does not recognize its nature. Than mind that recognizes its nature of emptiness is rigpa. I don't think "all creating king" means what you think it means. Mind as in awareness is NOT the source of all creation. Emptiness is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) We are generally blinded by our own blind spots, unaware where we are missing awareness, which is why it takes an objective viewer much farther along on the path to the equal nature that is in us all, to help us. You need lineage, GIH needs lineage. All this talk about not needing it is just intellectual ego building. It takes real humility to bow to lineage that knows already what it is you wish to know about yourself, not fake humility. If done with fake humility, then a person is learning nothing about the empty nature of their self "figuring out your existence." If we are all connected and equal in emptiness, that should not be too hard of a pill to swallow. If not, then one might stay rigid in this idea that "I am going at it alone finding out my existence because I own myself." Egotrip. And so what makes you different from someone who has hallucinations of Jesus and joins Christianity as a lineage. People have similar visions of Jesus or Krishna or whoever get together and believe they are right. They talk to God and have profound visions in their lineage and say "I am being humble." They see deities from all types of religious traditions that emerge during meditation. Even stuff like body of light isn't just part of Buddhism. I am not saying I don't need it. I'll use it, I'll learn from it if I see that people in a certain lineage is agreeable and wise. I don't approach this whole thing with a sectarian attitude and I think suggesting people do so is extremely harmful to letting people find their own wisdom. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 I don't think "all creating king" means what you think it means. Mind as in awareness is NOT the source of all creation. Emptiness is. Yes and emptiness is alive. So I call it awareness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Yes and emptiness is alive. So I call it awareness. Right, it's an aliveness which is not the same as just the knowingness/cognizant aspect of mind. Not some super cognizance which gives birth to everything. I think herein lies most of our difficulties -- in defining terms. Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 20, 2011 I don't think "all creating king" means what you think it means. Mind as in awareness is NOT the source of all creation. Emptiness is. which means its baseless. Emptiness is not some ground of being. As this article have pointed out: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Right, it's an aliveness which is not the same as just the knowingness/cognizance of mind. I think herein lies most of our difficulties -- in defining terms. If you mean knowingness/cognizance of mind to mean your thoughts, ok. But imo knowing and cognizance is in all states of experience. How clear, dense, neurotic, blissful that knowing experience may be, it is still cognizance, in that you are aware. I'm beginning to see awareness as a gradient, kind of like the model of conscious, subconscious, unconscious, it reaches into the infinite. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) which means its baseless. Emptiness is not some ground of being. As this article have pointed out: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html Didn't say it was. It's infinite potential. Potential isn't a thing. Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) which means its baseless. Emptiness is not some ground of being. As this article have pointed out: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html It's just the nature of experience. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 20, 2011 None of Vimalamitra or Namdrol's clarifications clash with what me or gold have been saying. If all-creating-kind is mind that does not recognize its nature. Than mind that recognizes its nature of emptiness is rigpa. I'm pretty sure this is not the understanding of Dzogchen. Rigpa and emptiness transcends mind's cognition. There is a recent thread about this. http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4461&start=120 Dzogchen related stuff should be clarified with Namdrol since he is many decades long practitioner and even qualified teacher of dzogchen (asked by a lama to teach dzogchen though refused) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 20, 2011 What's the difference? My personal nature is eternal. Same thing. Not only are you still grasping at an agent, you are still attached to personality. You should really contemplate bahiya style. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 Not only are you still grasping at an agent, you are still attached to personality. You should really contemplate bahiya style. How can you be attached to limitless potentiality? It's ungraspable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) How can you be attached to limitless potentiality? It's ungraspable. Sorry, I'm talking to you in two different threads. Anyway, what you're talking about isn't limitless potential. You're saying there is a substantial mind which is manifesting d.o. That's the very opposite of limitless potential. Limitless potential is emptiness aka the absence of that substantial mind. Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Sorry, I'm talking to you in two different threads. Anyway, what you're talking about isn't limitless potential. You're saying there is a substantial mind which is manifesting d.o. That's the very opposite of limitless potential. Limitless potential is emptiness aka the absence of that substantial mind. .... For the millionth time. Mind is not a substance. It's not some agent that creates things. Try to see it as a living limitless potential actualized. You just need to see that you are...alive. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 .... For the millionth time. Mind is not a substance. It's not some agent that creates things. Try to see it as a living limitless potential actualized. You just need to see that you are...alive. No, you are clearly saying that mind is the creator. You said that mind is the whole and mind manifests d.o. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) No, you are clearly saying that mind is the creator. You said that mind is the whole and mind manifests d.o. You know, forget the word mind, or consciousness, or thoughts, or whatever. Just forget everything and see that you are alive. Just notice this aliveness. Don't think d.o. or this is alive or that is alive. This is the most basic component to existence. That you are alive. Just purely acknowledge that. Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) You know, forget the word mind, or consciousness, or thoughts, or whatever. Just forget everything and see that you are alive. Just notice this aliveness. I agree that there is this aliveness. But it is NOT a manfestation of mind/awareness. I know what you are talking about. aliveness. True understanding of emptiness aka d.o. leads you to just that. If there were a mind that were the whole, that aliveness would not be possible at all. Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) I agree that there is this aliveness. But it is NOT a manfestation of mind/awareness. I know what you are talking about. aliveness. True understanding of emptiness aka d.o. leads you to just that. That aliveness is mind. Awareness. Emptiness/creativity is its function. Creative potency of primordial awareness. And that aliveness is infinite potential for manifestation. Here's a nice quote: Within the essence of ultimate truth, [yang dag don gyi ngo bo la] there is no buddha or ordinary being. [sangs rgyas dang ni sems can med] Since awareness cannot be reified, it is empty. [rig pa 'dzin pa med pas stong] Given that it does not dwell in emptiness, [stong pa nyid la me gnas na] it abides in its own state of supreme bliss. [rang gi bde chen sa la gnas] The majestic ruler of all buddhas [sangs rgyas kun gyi rje btsan pa] is understood to be one's own awareness. [rang gi rig pa shes par bya] This monarch, naturally manifest awareness, [rang snang rig pa'i rgyal po nyid] is present in everyone, but no one realizes it. [kun la yod de kun gyis rtog pa med -Longchenpa Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) That aliveness is mind. Awareness. Emptiness is its function. And that aliveness is infinite potential for manifestation. No, I see what the problem is. You have it backwards. That aliveness is emptiness. Mind is its function. Emptiness comes first, not mind. I don't know about that quote. I would trust that namdrol knows a bit more than either of us. And if you look at my earlier quote from him, you'll see that he states that Longchenpa rejects the mind-only view. But I don't want to turn this into a battle of quotes. Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) That still doesn't explain anything. For example, why do some people experience no siddhis, and some experience many? Some only experience siddhis being done by other beings around, but some can enact siddhis on their own. How do you explain all this? I'll reply to myself and do what I consider to be an acceptable job answering my own questions. 1. Whatever one finds manifested is intentional. If that's the case, why can't ordinary people say readily go through walls? That's a logical question. On the face of it this situation suggests that certain things are outside the scope of intent. But what is really going on here? As it turns out, our experiences are structured by our beliefs. Beliefs are stable intent formations. So when we tacitly and implicitly believe that all objects must have a property of spacial integrity we find that our experience conforms to this because of the principle number 1. Beliefs are said to be stable in the sense that once you believe something, you don't need to make a conscious effort to continue believing that same thing. They are formations because beliefs have a certain character or shape to them, albeit an abstract one. Another belief we might have is a belief about intent itself. If we believe our intentionality only extends to our "physical" body and no further, and that objects outside our body have natures independent of our intent, again, thanks to principle 1, our experience will conform to that belief. Of course we don't just have two beliefs. We have many beliefs. Often these beliefs support each other and need each other to be true. So for example of what might happen, imagine someone begins questioning the belief in object integrity and experiences sliding through an object previously or customarily considered solid. At this point all kinds of questions and alarm will appear, such as, "Is this real? Am I dreaming? Where is the real world? Is my mother safe? My father? Am I dead?" Why so many questions? Well, because one has a worldview. A worldview is a collection of beliefs that describe the world as we know it. If one of these beliefs is found to be false or flexible, it throws all the other beliefs into question. So if this one is not quite true, what else is not quite true? This is very scary and most people go right back to ordinary life after something like this happens. It is because beliefs resonate with each other, they stick together and support each other that this happens. People who learn not to be scared by strange stuff are said to have developed tolerance of the inconceivability of phenomena. It simply means magic is no longer scary. It's not scary because the world as an ordinary person might know it is gone and it's OK for it to be gone. Instead a different world manifests. This different world reflects the new worldview. If someone performs a magical action over and over regularly it stops being perceived as magical and becomes ordinary. What is considered magical is relative and unstable. In some realms going through walls is ordinary. In other realms it is magical because it's rare and poorly understood. In others it is impossible. So in a sense all actions are magical. Even walking and breathing are magical in some sense, but we don't see it that way because it's so ordinary and common. For a being who has dwelt in a formless realm for one aeon, having a physical body would be very strange and scary, and also very magical. For us, even a taste of the formless realm is scary and magical. Besides beliefs there is also a force of habit to contend with. So for example, suppose I believe I can exercise, but I don't. Why is that? That's because avoiding exercise is habitual. Once exercise becomes a habit, it's hard to stop. So habits have force of their own regardless of beliefs. This leads us to the second principle: 2. Phenomena tend to continue. This describes the tendency of patterns to be stable, even in the absence of supporting beliefs. So for example, one time I had a lucid dream. In the dream I knew beyond doubt all my surroundings were nothing more than my mind's creations. So I tried to go through the wall and failed. I just bounced off the wall. So even though I believed it was definitely possible, I still bounced off. Why is that? Well, habit was a large part of it. I was so used to bouncing off objects that it was hard to do otherwise. Also, I had to think what would it be like to go through the wall. I mean, I couldn't even imagine it. Is it like moving through tooth paste? Or is it like moving through space? Or like through water? Will I feel the wall inside my body? There are many options. I decided moving through the wall should feel like moving through space while not feeling anything special inside my body. Then I focused and meditated for a few seconds and successfully went through the wall just as I wanted. Similarly in many lucid dreams I've been able to fly, but not in all. Why not? Again, when I am lucid not only do I know I can fly, but I even know I've done it many times, so it's not even all that unusual. Still, in some dreams I fail to fly anyway. Why? Sticking to the ground is a habit. Beliefs tend to continue because of the habit principle, but they are still intentional because no habit is outside intent. To get a feeling for how beliefs can be both intentional and outside one's conscious awareness imagine you wear a pair of shades because it's a sunny day. You get indoors and put the shades on top of your head. As your attention gets absorbed in this and that activity indoors you forget about the shades that are on top of your head. The shades are on your head intentionally but at the same time, you lose awareness of them because your attention become absorbed in something else. Similarly, people get absorbed in day to day minutia and forget many of the deep overarching beliefs that form the basis of their worldview. But still, all beliefs are intentional and they can all be changed, even if it's not easy to do so. So, someone who has challenged one's beliefs many times and thus softened them up is likely to encounter beings who demonstrate unusual powers of intent (siddhis). As one's beliefs continue to soften further, many siddhis become accessible to oneself directly. Someone who has very conservative, limited and restricted beliefs which are held very strongly, which haven't been softened in any way, is very unlikely to even meet or to even read about a person who can exercise the powers of intent. This explanation probably leaves some questions unanswered, but that's OK. It's already a long post. Edited July 20, 2011 by goldisheavy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2011 No, I see what the problem is. You have it backwards. That aliveness is emptiness. Mind is its function. Emptiness comes first, not mind. Ok. So we have it down to the basic disagreement. I'm fine with leaving this discussion here. Anything more, it will have to be self-recognized. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
