Primary and Secondary Enlightenment?

[C T]

Yes, this was my point about the bug thing.. what does it matter if we say it's in a state of non-existence vs. saying that it doesn't exist. It's the same meaning. To cling to a particular verbiage of how to express it only puts a lock on the mind and perception, and the desire to do this all the time is really a big mistake.

 

It reminds me of a story about a monk was "almost there" and talked to a teacher about everything he knew explaining it all perfectly and then asked "so what else do I need to know? can you bring me to the other shore?" The teacher said "no, I can't, but the riverboat monk is the one who can."

 

So the monk was brought to a monk in a boat on the river. The monk accepted him into the boat. The monk began to explain everything he understood with flawlessness. Then suddenly, the riverboat monk flipped the boat over. The monk was then enlightened.

I love stories!!

 

Let me tell you one in return. This is a true story related by one Gyaltsab Rinpoche to one of his students.

 

It goes like this... There was once a Buddhist yogin (name not revealed) who wandered through Afghanistan and parts of Iran. After some time, he began to teach. Because of the geographical/cultural significance of the general area where he found himself, this very realized teacher interchanged Buddhist philosophical terms like Dharmakaya and Buddha-Essence/nature of Mind with Allah when he taught, as a means to gain common understanding and appeal among those who came to his teachings.

 

The sensitivity and depth of his work later came to the attention of a Sufi elder, who subsequently recognized this yogin as his lineage successor. After this elder passed on, this Buddhist teacher took over teaching the Sufi congregation, and when he eventually passed away as well, he was recognized as a great Sufi saint.

 

Apparently, the attachment to Buddhist Dharma or Islamic Dharma was of no concern, nor issue, for this great but now unfortunately relatively forgotten teacher; to him, the play of appearances was simply a means to express something beyond any cultural or spiritual reference.

 

(read the above story in a friend's blog)

 

 

Nice story... and good lesson too.

[gendao]

*two emptiness: there are two levels of realizing emptiness, one is the emptiness of self, one is the emptiness of phenomena

There are two emptiness:

 

Emptiness of self in person (as in atman, soul, independent self, agent, perceiver, controller, etc),

Emptiness of self in phenomena (self in phenomena means seeing mental and material phenomena as having independent, inherent existence)

The two emptinesses can simultaneously authenticated, however, there are two steps to the realization.

 

In other words, you first realize emptiness of self in atman, before you realize emptiness of phenomena.

 

Realizing the emptiness of subject (a perceiver, seer, doer, etc) is not the smae as realizing the emptiness of objects (realizing that all phenomena dependently originates, are empty, like a magical illusion).

 

There are those who realize the emptiness of a subject, and still hold that dharmas/phenomena have intrinsic existence. For such persons, even though they do not see an agent behind phenomena, phenomena cannot reveal its 'illusion-like and empty' nature.

 

It is said that Arhats only realize the first emptiness, while bodhisattvas realizes both.

 

So these are two different levels of views - the view of a subjective self, and the view that objects have its own existence, and both views must be liberated through the insights into the two emptinesses.

The emptiness of self is not just about realizing no separation of subject and object.

 

You can realize no separation, and yet you still cling to the notion of an inherent knowing.

 

So the view of duality is gone, but the view of inherency is in tact.

 

The view of inherency is only removed after realizing anatta and shunyata. The view of inherency is twofold: the view of inherent self, and the view of inherent object.

 

When you realize anatta, you realize that 'in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen', you no longer see a mirror that is inseperable from its reflections. At this point it is no longer about the inseparability of subject and object: rather, there is no subject, the subject is empty.

 

The process itself rolls and knows, no knower is necessary or exists.

 

At one point, all phenomena becomes realized as a shimmering mirage and display of D.O. - nothing truly there. Like a magic show, like an illusion, like a dream, yet vivid and clear.

I actually saw this in a dream recently. Unfortunately, it was only a dream...

I don't see it this way. I see awareness/luminous clarity as manifestation, and manifestation dependently originates. What dependently originates is empty, hence no arising or cessation.

AWESOME explanation of "double emptiness" my friend!!! Thank you so much for this wonderful explanation and dialogue!!!

 

*standing applause*

 

So, basically there is no (inherent existence of) subject or object and both must be transcended.

[Informer]

I actually saw this in a dream recently. Unfortunately, it was only a dream... :(AWESOME explanation of "double emptiness" my friend!!! Thank you so much for this wonderful explanation and dialogue!!!

 

*standing applause*

 

So, basically there is no (inherent existence of) subject or object and both must be transcended.

 

To encompass both, which is why either or.

[xabir2005]

Hmm, found these instead.

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_visions

 

and:

 

http://kuntuzangpo.com/index.php/en/dzogchen/65-the-four-toegel-visions

Yes but my info is correct. You don't have to enter path of seeing to 'see dharmata'. Also there is another thread in dharmawheel which explains the difference between 'recognizing rigpa' and 'realizing emptiness'. In the first case, you simply realize the clarity in the gap between thoughts. The latter, is the realization of twofold emptiness that one enters into path of seeing. Recognizing rigpa is easier than realizing emptiness, and practitioners of Dzogchen must recognize rigpa first, before they can start practicing. But they don't have to realize emptiness (it can be an inference) to start practicing.

 

Namdrol:

 

The first vision resembles the path of seeing because one is seeing "dharmata" directly. It is actually heat on the path of application because at this stage one's understanding of emptiness is still inferential, according to Khenpo Ngawang Palzang, Chatral Rinpoche's guru.

 

One reason it is considered "like" the path of seeing, etc. is that when one is engaging in the first two visions, one's course obscurations dissolve. In common mahayana and vajrayana this only happens after one realizes the actual path of seeing. This is a special feature of togal.

 

N

Edited September 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir and CowTao,

 

Why do you want to realize enlightenment?

 

I think I have a sense about CowTao, but not Xabir. I would like to know your intentions for cultivation.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes but my info is correct. You don't have to enter path of seeing to 'see dharmata'. Also there is another thread in dharmawheel which explains the difference between 'recognizing rigpa' and 'realizing emptiness'. In the first case, you simply realize the clarity in the gap between thoughts. The latter, is the realization of twofold emptiness that one enters into path of seeing. Recognizing rigpa is easier than realizing emptiness, and practitioners of Dzogchen must recognize rigpa first, before they can start practicing. But they don't have to realize emptiness (it can be an inference) to start practicing.

 

Namdrol:

 

The first vision resembles the path of seeing because one is seeing "dharmata" directly. It is actually heat on the path of application because at this stage one's understanding of emptiness is still inferential, according to Khenpo Ngawang Palzang, Chatral Rinpoche's guru.

 

One reason it is considered "like" the path of seeing, etc. is that when one is engaging in the first two visions, one's course obscurations dissolve. In common mahayana and vajrayana this only happens after one realizes the actual path of seeing. This is a special feature of togal.

 

N

Then what about all the lights?

[xabir2005]

Then what about all the lights?

What about them?

[xabir2005]

Xabir and CowTao,

 

Why do you want to realize enlightenment?

 

I think I have a sense about CowTao, but not Xabir. I would like to know your intentions for cultivation.

overcome all ignorance, all afflictions, all sufferings, the uncontrolled cycle of samsara, gain omniscience (buddhahood), help other beings do the same Edited September 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[C T]

Xabir and CowTao,

 

Why do you want to realize enlightenment?

 

I think I have a sense about CowTao, but not Xabir. I would like to know your intentions for cultivation.

I dont really have a choice.

 

Every single past thought, feeling, emotion, observation and action, having accumulated precisely the way they were meant to accumulate, brought me to this present phase of being.

 

I did not set out with any specific purpose or goal.

 

I still do not practice with any precise formulation of what i want to achieve with the spiritual life ~ i simply allow whatever happens to happen.

 

Lately i am beginning to sense the presence of divine fragrances and aromas around me, even when i know there is no logical likelihood for these smells being there... Cant say for sure why, and which precise practice brought this about, but if pressed, i would say its a cumulative result of cultivation. Did i intend for this to unfold? Not that i am consciously aware of.

 

As for enlightenment, i dont really think about it, unless i am reminded how enchanting it always appears to some folks here on the forum.

 

One thing i am almost certain about is that its not some facet of spiritual pursuit where one can set out to purposefully achieve a state of what they deem to be 'higher', filled with immense profundity and supra-transcendent. I see the transformative process as impersonal, ever on-going, yet at times intermittent, with ups and downs (but these moments are also crucial learning aspects and curves of the great flow), and also, there is no pinnacle of realization, conventionally speaking, in that such a position cannot be pointed at, where one can say, "There, i have got it". This is the greatest delusion, in my humble view.

[Lucky7Strikes]

overcome all ignorance, all afflictions, all sufferings, the uncontrolled cycle of samsara, gain omniscience (buddhahood), help other beings do the same

Is this a quote?

Edited September 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I dont really have a choice....

Thank you. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

What about them?

Nevermind.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

Thank you. .

_/\_