Could someone explain the Buddhist belief system to me?

[DreamBliss]

After all, Buddha got enlightened, didn't he?

 

One last thing here I should mention... I did not start on this path to become enlightened. I do not seek it. Not even sure I understand why it should be so desirable a thing to attain. I started on this simply seeking the truth, seeking freedom. I think freedom is my ultimate goal more than anything else. To free myself of any of my former beliefs which trouble me, like what Christianity says about the afterlife for example. To freely move in the energetic realms in lucid dreams and astral project, to freely move in the physical realms, to learn how to use portals to transport myself anywhere and anywhen. Even to master my body or the constrction of what we call reality to the point I could teleport myself anywhere. To be able to go anywhere, do anythng to the limits of my consiosness, and most importantly to be able to learn exciting new and interesting things.

 

If in the process I become enlightened, then that would just be a potentially desirable side effect. If this is the process of becoming enlightened, what I have described, then I acknowlegde my ignorance. Whatever the case may be, I do not intend any offense to those seeking enlightenment. If that is your goal, awesome! My goal is freedom, to freely explore my own path outside the imposed limitations of the rest of humanity.

- DreamBliss

[Jeff]

 

Yes many people think that the end goal is recognizing the instant of unfabricated freshness (ma bcos shes pa skad cig ma) and the conceptualizing mind.

 

This is just the beginning.

 

You still have to work with the body's channels using esoteric tantric techniques until omniscient Buddhahood.

 

Yes, or... Just playing with energy/light becomes a very important "practice"...

[idiot_stimpy]

I did not start on this path to become enlightened. I do not seek it.

 

I started on this simply seeking the truth, seeking freedom. I think freedom is my ultimate goal more than anything else. To free myself of any of my former beliefs which trouble me,

 

I don't know of anything else other than enlightenment, in order to be free and detached from former beliefs that trouble you.

 

The Buddha sought enlightenment to put an end to suffering. To be free from the conditions that caused suffering to arise.

Edited November 12, 2012 by idiot_stimpy

[Fū Yue]

One last thing here I should mention... I did not start on this path to become enlightened. I do not seek it. Not even sure I understand why it should be so desirable a thing to attain. I started on this simply seeking the truth, seeking freedom. I think freedom is my ultimate goal more than anything else.

 

Nirvana is liberation. Enlightenment is freedom.

[Jeff]

 

 

Your position is untenable. Because you project an inherent existence onto the 5 aggregates, 18 elements (of psycho-physical experience,) and 12 sense spheres: You do not understand that phenomena are non-arising; that they do not arise, abide, or cease in the 3 times (of past, present, future.) Phenomena pose an obstruction to your experience of the unmodified state (of spontaneous perfection.) Therefore, phenomena drag you further into the rounds of samsara upon inception. They do not effortlessly self-release, like the simile of birds flying through the sky: Leaving no traces behind.

 

View dictates one's experience and the outcome of their path. If you have a view that's a "top down" approach, where there is an absolute state of experience more "purer" than the rest: Then you will never be able to understand that experience has always been essenceless and free from the beginning. That is why dependent origination is called the viewless view. It is called such, because it totally ends all views of existence and non-existence, leaving behind nothing for one to grasp onto. It cuts through all the thicket of views (including itself) in order to experience the primordial purity of each conditioned phenomenon (as the inseparability of empty-luminosity.) Each phenomenon will then be understood to be perfect as it is, without referential co-ordinates to tie one up. It will be directly cognized as thus:

 

The nonexistence of the transcendence of suffering

Is what the protector of the world has taught as the transcendence

of suffering.

Knots tied on space

are untied by space itself.

 

I have no idea how you can extrapolate the my statements quoted to what you have defined. Additionally, it is an incorrect "judgement" or view of my perspective. If you are really interested, my views (in Dzogchen terms) are basically the same as described in the book "Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State" by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. It is excellent book, very well writen and easy to understand (I just use different terms like energy instead of voice).

 

[idiot_stimpy]

Lol, I don't know...I just wanted to see if he responded haha....It looks pretty stupid, now that I look back at what I typed, lol.

 

I understood what you wrote. Other than the part where you state their position is untenable and they do not understand, your reply was quite beautiful.

[Tibetan_Ice]

In the light of this latest post you can consider my already revised and qualified apology to be withdrawn.

 

If you actually really ever felt insulted you should report me to the moderators.

Hi Gatito

No need for apologies.. You were poking fun and you poked me in the anti-ayp eye. Just wanted to make sure you don't poke me like that again. Someone might get the wrong impression, that I still belong to AYP..

 

I would never report you to the moderators because I wouldn't want to see you banned. Besides, I believe in freedom of speech and expression, so long as it is not downright hate-mongering, slander or spreading ignorance. In reality, every counter to any point of view is a form of insult, isn't it? It's just a matter of degrees and choice of words.

 

I would like you to know that I enjoy your posts and the fact that you have points of view that you are willing to stand up for. I like people with backbone.

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi TI (and Gatito),

 

 

I wish you (both) well on your path.

 

 

(p.s. Your old friend says "hi".)

 

Hi Jeff,

Gatito's remark made me realize that I do not like to be associated with you. I have never met you in person, nor have I ever talked to you on the phone. A series of emails does not constitute much. (and to be quite frank, all though it was nice to have someone to rant about AYP to, and I did appreciate it at the time, I realize now that you were just trying to understand anger, or perhaps you were feeding off of it. )

 

So, adios amigos.

 

TI

[Simple_Jack]

If there's one thing you should come away with from this thread: It's to not succumb to the word "Awareness" when reading something from dzogchen, mahamudra, or anything related to Buddhism. Think of it in terms of dependent origination (i.e. a sense consciousness arises with the meeting of a sense organ and a sense object).

Edited November 30, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[idiot_stimpy]

Experience is an idea, awareness is an idea, myself is an idea. Ideas, thoughts and labels come and go.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi Dreambliss

Well, you asked.

 

I thought I should mention, that entire post was written elsewhere and then pasted in. There was nothing personally directed at you, although you seem to have taken some of the comments like they were. Perhaps I should have quoted the whole post.

 

I guess you are too new at this to realize the difference between Patanjali's last three limbs of yoga (sustained directed attention leading to samadhi) and TM/Deep Meditation, which is "effortlessly letting the repetition of the mantra dissolve into stillness", and you probably didn't read or care about the first link that I posted. That is fine.

 

You had asked what the "relaxation response" is.

 

The Relaxation Response is what most people refer to as TM. I do not regard TM or Deep Meditation as true meditation in the historical sense; it is only a hypnotic tool to enable the practitioner to let go and take a dip into deep sleep.

See:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=tm+the+relaxation+response&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=&redir_esc=&ei=kXagUPLMI-b-iwLX9oDADQ

 

True classic meditation involves pointing the attention to a single object, keeping it there (sustained attention which at first requires great effort) until eventually the subject and the object fuse together revealing bright light, joy, clarity and a form of superconsciousness. It does not matter what the object is, however, a mantra is not the best thing to use to do that because by generating the mantra, you are using the mind, which causes distubances.. Better is to choose a stationary object, like a visualization or something that you are not doing consciously, which does not entail an act of conscious volition like breathing.

 

In another post you said:

"Now I do ZaZen when I get up and try to do Deep Meditation using the mantas, "Release, Flow" or "(my real name) a Center of Consiousness."

 

I suppose you can use the mantra in that way, but perhaps we should look at the mechanics of mantra repetition.

 

Here is what I believe:

 

The mantra is a tool that manifests energy, converts it into what ever is intended by the meaning of the mantra, and uses the psychic channels of the body to manifest the desired outcome. So, it goes without saying, and can be confirmed by most spiritual bodies' teachings, that more repetitions are better, and the more energy you can put into them, the better. Some Buddhist practices, like ngondro, have goals of reciting a mantra 100,000 time or more..

 

However, this is how it works.. Whenever you make a sound, out-loud, subvocally or purely mentally, the act starts at the lower tan tien (just below the navel). This is where the breath impulse manifests in the body.

Next, the sounds of the mantra resonate at different parts of the body. For example, the "A" resonates at the lower tan tien just below the navel. "ooooohh" (as in "who" ) resonates at the throat. "M" resonates in the upper lip and nasal cavity. "NG" (as in "song") resonates at the top of the nasal cavity, right next to the third eye.

 

So, when you say "AAAAAAUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMM" out loud, subvocally, or mentally, the body starts sending energy from the lower tan tien (AAAA) , up the connecting nerves to the throat (UUUU), then to the top of the nose (MMMM).. You are directing prana up the body into the third eye. Try it. Sense the vibrations and where they go.

 

The short "A", known in Buddhist tummo practices, is always at the area just below the navel. When you say the mantra "HUM", first it starts at the mouth because of the "H", but rapidly drives straight to the lower tan tien, and then up to the third eye (the opening of the sushumna, where the ida and pingala collapse into the sushumna).

 

In short, the mantra is creating and directing an energy flow. With meaning and intention, it becomes a powerful tool.

 

If you look at some of the most powerful mantras, they all start with AUM or OM and end at the third eye. Like OM MANI PADME HUNG. Some, end back at the lower tan tien, like AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA. They all affect the energy flow in a different way.

 

So, I'm not sure what effect using the mantra in the way that you are is going to produce. It seems to be a method of labelling the mental state in order to train the mind. But, it is not classic mantra repetition.

 

Yes, I too fell into the AYP free lessons online, and after reading all of the lessons, decided to adopt them. AYP isn't all bad. The idea of maintaining a consistent daily routine is essential. After five years, I am still meditating two or three times a day, but at a minimum, two times a day.

 

It wasn't till later that I discovered the misunderstanding of dhyana/dharana/samadhi at AYP. You see, I had been doing the effortless mantra for a few years, occasionally dipping into deep sleep and popping right back out (which is the most anyone ever does in TM). Even a study on TM practitioners called "Zen Brain" noted that the breathless state in experienced TM meditators lasted only a few seconds and occured every 96 seconds..

 

In Buddhist Anapanasati and the Jhanas/samadhi, practitioners can remain in jhanas/samadhis for hours at a time without bouncing out, without any effects of overload or distress. It is nourishing rather than adverse. What does that tell you?

 

When I started to realize that there was no support or mention of effort to sustain attention at AYP, I started to examine the theory.. Faulty.. I did a meditation, and instead of releasing the mantra into silence, I just visualized the "I" (in the IAM mantra) and stuck to it with much effort. Well, everything got really bright and clear, filled with light and joy and I finally went into samadhi, a superconscious state of mind. Then I realized that TM/DM was not classic Patanjali, or classic meditation. Then I realized that AYP's DM and TM was misleading people. Thus it begain..

 

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

What are you doing in a Buddhist thread? Also, when are you going to stop interpreting Dzogchen as some sort of Neo-Advaita sctick? What with all your talk of receding into the Subject?

 

P.S. I have read the Practice Of Dzogchen by Tulku Thondup

 

Hi Simple Jack

First of all, that was a comment to Gatito, he knows what I mean, not you. I don't have to justify my presence to anyone, and neither does Gatito.

 

Secondly, it is clear to me that you don't know much about Dzogchen, for if you had you would know that Dzogchen is the practice of taking the mind as the subject of meditation. And, as such, one should turn the attention away from external objects and recede backwards, inwards to where the action is taking place. This is not an neo-Advaitan schtick.. everybody knows that neo-advaitans don't have any practices. First Shamata, then rigpa..

 

Further, after having had the repeated experience of Clear Light, and knowing that it exists between the subject and the object, between the outer perceptions and the conceptual mind (which is behind), the way I found that was while I was receding back into the "I". Actually, it is more like the Clear Light is super-imposed over everything, but it looked like it was in the middle of the stream of consciousness.. I think it comes out of the heart.

 

Turning the attention towards the source was outlined in Alan Wallace's book "The Attention Revolution" as a viable practice to setting the mind the natural state, which is a precusor to the practice of Dzogchen. It was also the method used by Merrill-Wolf. He called it going back to the source.

 

For an excellent discussion on the realization of rigpa, you might want to listen to this talk (and the meditation too):

Listen for the word "inversion"..

 

Caution: Alan Wallace uses that big bad word "Awareness".. and distinguishes between the subtrate consciousness and the Primordial state.. You might also want to check out Wallace's "Awarenes of Awareness" podcasts..

 

http://podcasts.sbinstitute.com/spring2011/?p=204

 

So you have a book on Dzogchen? I haven't seen that one. I will have to order it. Thanks. Does it support shamatha before rigpa?

 

I have the following Dzogchen books:

"Heart Drops of Dharmakaya - Dzogchen Practice of the Bon Tradition" - Gyaltsen

"Vivid Awareness" -Khenpo Gangshar

"Stilling the Mind" - Alan Wallace

"Flight of the Garuda - The Dzogchen Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism" - Keith Dowman.

 

How about if you read those books, I'll read yours and then we'll talk..

 

TI

[gatito]

Experience is an idea, awareness is an idea, myself is an idea. Ideas, thoughts and labels come and go.

 

I don't want to start Buddhist/Advaita World War II but please understand that Awareness/Consciousness in Advaita is "that which is reading these words". It's undeniable in your own experience. If you didn't exist, you couldn't deny your own existence. So we start from there - what is undeniable in your own experience - not with concepts.

 

Then we explore our own direct experience carefully, checking constantly that we're not getting caught again in "the mind" (thoughts/beliefs/ideas/theories/concepts).

 

In Buddhism, Awareness seems to be something different and very complex - something that, in Advaita, we would (initially) consider as an "Object" (mediated by sight, sound, smell, touch, taste - incidentally, we also add feelings and thoughts - seven senses!! ).

 

However, coming back to Advaita, we then go on to see clearly/experientially (as opposed to philosophically) that what we previously believed to be "Objects" are nothing other than Consciousness/Awareness Itself (Atman - which is the same as Brahman). If there's nothing other than Brahman then there cannot be two (Dvaita) but we don't say that there is One because that's not strictly true either (if you stop and think about it). So it's much closer to the Truth to say that there are not two (Advaita or Nonduality).

 

Much simpler Path perhaps? (It can, however take many years to complete this experiential discovery and there are many different techniques (practices) that may be used by a Karana Guru (a Self-Realised Teacher who who is prepared to take the student to the final destination). Different Paths - same final destination).

 

Also, it's a different Path for everyone. Sorry to throw that in at the end.

[RongzomFan]

Madhyamaka: Nonarising/illusion because dependently originated phenomenon do not arise.

 

Advaita Vedanta: Nonarising/illusion since Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman.

 

Dzogchen Upadesha : Nonarising/illusion since the five pure lights never display as anything other than the five pure lights.

 

Kashmir Saivism: Everything is One and real.

Edited November 12, 2012 by alwayson

[gatito]

Madhyamaka: Nonarising/illusion because dependently originated phenomenon do not arise.

 

Advaita Vedanta: Nonarising/illusion since Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman.

 

Dzogchen Upadesha : Nonarising/illusion since the five pure lights never display as anything other than the five pure lights.

 

I can't disagree with the statement that "Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman" but I'm not "competent" in "Bhuddhism", so I can't comment on the rest of your post.

 

I think that I'll just leave you all to sort out any remaining issues yourselves (unless Jeff and his shovel pop up again).

 

Sorry for the interruption.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

Kashmir Saivism: Everything is One and real.

 

Can't argue with that either.

[Simple_Jack]

Hi Simple Jack

First of all, that was a comment to Gatito, he knows what I mean, not you. I don't have to justify my presence to anyone, and neither does Gatito.

 

Secondly, it is clear to me that you don't know much about Dzogchen, for if you had you would know that Dzogchen is the practice of taking the mind as the subject of meditation. And, as such, one should turn the attention away from external objects and recede backwards, inwards to where the action is taking place. This is not an neo-Advaitan schtick.. everybody knows that neo-advaitans don't have any practices. First Shamata, then rigpa..

 

Further, after having had the repeated experience of Clear Light, and knowing that it exists between the subject and the object, between the outer perceptions and the conceptual mind (which is behind), the way I found that was while I was receding back into the "I". Actually, it is more like the Clear Light is super-imposed over everything, but it looked like it was in the middle of the stream of consciousness.. I think it comes out of the heart.

 

Turning the attention towards the source was outlined in Alan Wallace's book "The Attention Revolution" as a viable practice to setting the mind the natural state, which is a precusor to the practice of Dzogchen. It was also the method used by Merrill-Wolf. He called it going back to the source.

 

For an excellent discussion on the realization of rigpa, you might want to listen to this talk (and the meditation too):

Listen for the word "inversion"..

 

Caution: Alan Wallace uses that big bad word "Awareness".. and distinguishes between the subtrate consciousness and the Primordial state.. You might also want to check out Wallace's "Awarenes of Awareness" podcasts..

 

http://podcasts.sbin...ring2011/?p=204

 

So you have a book on Dzogchen? I haven't seen that one. I will have to order it. Thanks. Does it support shamatha before rigpa?

 

I have the following Dzogchen books:

"Heart Drops of Dharmakaya - Dzogchen Practice of the Bon Tradition" - Gyaltsen

"Vivid Awareness" -Khenpo Gangshar

"Stilling the Mind" - Alan Wallace

"Flight of the Garuda - The Dzogchen Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism" - Keith Dowman.

 

How about if you read those books, I'll read yours and then we'll talk..

 

TI

 

"Substrate consciousness" sounds like it would be the alaya (kun-gzhi) which is described as the state of ignorance in dzogchen http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6942

 

Daniel Arraes wrote:Can one say that, according to Dzogchen, Aalaya (kun-gzhi) and the neutral awareness (shes-pa-lung-ma-bstan) are the same thing?

Malcolm:No, they are different. The ālaya is ignorance.

Daniel Arraes: What type of ignorance: innate or imputing?

Malcolm: Imputing since it is afflicted.

"Secondly, it is clear to me that you don't know much about Dzogchen, for if you had you would know that Dzogchen is the practice of taking the mind as the subject of meditation. And, as such, one should turn the attention away from external objects and recede backwards, inwards to where the action is taking place....First Shamata, then rigpa.. Further, after having had the repeated experience of Clear Light, and knowing that it exists between the subject and the object, between the outer perceptions and the conceptual mind (which is behind), the way I found that was while I was receding back into the "I". Actually, it is more like the Clear Light is super-imposed over everything, but it looked like it was in the middle of the stream of consciousness.. I think it comes out of the heart."

 

Unfortunetely the "Turiya VS Dzogchen" thread was taken down from DW, though there's a couple links to some quotes from that thread. From what I took from that thread [http://thetaobums.com/topic/23648-awareness-of-non-meditation/page__st__48:]

 

Malcolm [formerly Namdrol:]

 

mr.marigpa wrote:

1. How does Dzoghcen account for Turiya?

 

Turiya is equivalent to the ālaya, a state of ignorance.

 

2. How is Turiya different from Dharmakaya and Rigpa?

 

The ālaya is not the dharmakāya: the nature of dharmakāya is rigpa, the nature of the ālaya is marigpa.

 

3. If a practitioner manages to sleep in Turiya, how is this different from clear light sleep in Dzogchen?

 

The former is resting the ālaya; the latter in dharmakāya.

 

4. There are Transcendental Meditation practitioners who claim to be aware in dreamless sleep....is this not a case of sleeping in the clear light?

 

No.

 

mr.marigpa wrote:How is the alaya described in Dzogchen teachings?

 

The all basis is described in various ways, but fundamentally it is consciousness.

 

Isn't emptiness the nature of the dharmakaya?

 

Yes, that too.

 

If we are not resting in rigpa, then are we resting in the alaya?

 

Yes.

 

Some TM practitioners claim a stable witnessing in waking, dream, and dreamless sleep. According to Dzogchen, is this just good mindfulness?

How is this witnessing capacity (that includes ability to not be distracted by daytime activity and dreams) different from rigpa?

 

If there is a subject and object, it is mind, not rigpa.

asunthatneversets: The state or position of being firmly established in "the witness" is merely being stabilized in the ālaya(kun gzhi). The term "witnessing" in and of itself suggests observing phenomena from a particular standpoint. Stable witnessing is a state of detachment, In being firmly established in the "witness" phenomena appear as they normally do except there's no feeling of it being "me" or "I". The "me"(or 'that' which witnesses) is posited to be something other. So in witnessing, the body and other phenomena appear detached from the "knower". And 'that'(pure knowingness) which is disconnected is then posited to be beyond anything "knowable" because it is that which knows. 'That' which knows(pure knowingness/awareness) is considered to be a substantiated and localized substratum(even though it is considered to be formless) and for that reason it is the ālaya. To describe this state, an analogy of a movie patron viewing images on a theater screen is sometimes used.

 

The witnessing state is equivalent to stabilized śamatha (shiné), once śamatha is stabilized one is essentially proficient in "really good dualistic mindfulness" (as you said). After stabilized shiné, next step is released shiné and once released shiné is achieved and stabilized, one is said to be officially practicing dzogchen.

 

"When you have achieved released shiné and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a dzogchen practitioner."

- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

 

According to ChNN, a person isn't truly considered a dzogchen practitioner, until you've reached the stage of released shine. A person brought this up on DW http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10080

 

"... to learn or apply the practice of Dzogchen, or to be in the real state of Dzogchen, the principle is not only that we sit quietly somewhere practicing Shine. Shine is useful and important, but it is not of ultimate importance. Shine, or the state of emptiness, is ultimately only a kind of experience. And in the Dzogchen teachings, there are methods that are much more important than ordinary Shine. People generally do not understand these things. When they speak about Shine, they talk as if they consider it to be a supreme practice. But this is simply not true."

- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu - Dzogchen Teachings -

 

Tsoknyi Rinpoche makes it clear that shiney without support is distinct from shiney without focus:

Q: Could you please explain a bit more about shamatha without focus?

A: The terms that we use are "shamatha with support" and "shamathat without support." In both of these cases, there is a focus.

ChNNR's "released shine" is a step beyond this, where there is not just no support, but no focus. As I understand it, even in unsupported shamatha, there is a sense of abiding, and that's what must be released to transition to Dzogchen practice.

 

Much brouhaha is made over the fact that many practitioners believe they are practicing free from focus, when they are really practicing "mere" shamatha without support. That's why I'm looking for more details ./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif My current best understanding is that one should simply progressively release the grasping that is inherent in shamatha. For example:

What is the difference between the real state of rigpa and the imitation? Check whether or not there is any clinging, any sense of keeping hold of something. With conceptual rigpa you notice a sense of trying to keep a state, trying to maintain a state, trying to nurture a state. There is a sense of hope or fear and also a sense of being occupied. Understand? The keeping means there’s a sense of protecting, of not wanting to lose it, in the back of the mind. This is not bad, it’s good, and for some people there’s no way around training like that in the beginning. Through training in this way, that conceptual aspect becomes increasingly refined and clarified. So you practice more, more, more. Now you have more of a sense of openness, but still you’re holding this openness. All right, then, let the openness go. Let’s say that after two months you let it go. But still you’re staying within the openness—so then you practice letting go of the staying. And somehow there is still a remnant of wanting to achieve it again. So you let that go as well, and slowly again let it go, let it go, until you become very much ‘just there,’ and finally very free and easy.

It could be that I'm trying too hard to make a distinction between unsupported shamatha and beginning Dzogchen, and that really, it's all one long process of releasing ever more subtle grasping from the former. The point at which it can be called the latter may be arbitrary. Can anyone confirm? Or is there some fixed divide before and after which practice should proceed differently?

.................

FWIW, I think the only advice about releasing grasping in this thread was posted by me. Of course, don't take seriously anything this (pre-)novice has to say on the matter, but that Tsoknyi Rinpoche quote I posted on releasing is obviously golden!

 

One way of looking at it seems to be this. There are many types of grasping and things to grasp, and they are ever more subtle. There's the "maintaining the meditation" grasping; subject-object duality; grasping onto "the now"; hope and fear; nurturing and protecting; holding openness; "staying with" openness; wanting it; etc. These are all examples from texts.

 

Until they are all gone, I guess it is not true rigpa. But Tsoknyi R. speaks of progressing from "ordinary mind / natural mind" to "baby rigpa" to authentic rigpa, by releasing ever more subtle grasping. It sounds to me like after the first two graspings above are relatively released, one has not even started to practice Dzogchen; after that, one starts "officially" practicing and progressively (or suddenly!) releases those and the rest entirely.

 

But I think the key word there is "relatively" released: one does not have to be perfectly free of the "I am meditating" sense or subject-object duality to start practicing. That sounds like it would require deep realization of anatta. Instead, they should be quieted down to a "sufficient" level. That is, while one is meditating, if one is rarely entertaining the thought (or sense) of "I am meditating" and especially "I am meditating on that," then one is still practicing.

................

So I was told to look for "shamatha that delights the tathagatas" as a synonym for "released shine," and indeed Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche uses the former to describe the final type of shamatha used in Mahamudra. Tsele Namtok Rangdrol indicates that this does lead to the realization of one-pointedness, and the attainment of the first bhumi, whereupon true insight blazes forth. Another synonym I've found is "supreme shamatha," as in this nice quote:

Therefore, do not inhibit any experience

Such as the six sense impressions,

And don't stray into fixating or indulging.

If you endeavor in this supreme shamatha

Of resting loosely in this composure of naturalness,

You have the experiences of movement, attainment,

Familiarization, stability, and perfection.

I.e., it's just another way of describing resting in the natural state.

 

And there seem to be two similar but slightly different approaches, both requiring a stable base of unsupported shine. One is to start doing shine and explicitly "release" it. The other, commonly found in Mahamudra manuals, is to simply totally relax (but ensure that presence of mind is not lost).

 

Come to think of it, these approaches seem to also be covered slightly differently by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, in his "tightening and loosening" practices. One transitions between the two, depending on if one is too tense or too loose.

 

The above descriptions of released shine sound like a more advanced stage of practice, one that isn't contrived like "regular shine."

Edited November 30, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Jeff]

Hi SJ,

 

Excellent and informative post (#243) above. Shine is equivalent to clear mind previously discussed.

 

Thanks.

 

[Simple_Jack]

Further, after having had the repeated experience of Clear Light, and knowing that it exists between the subject and the object, between the outer perceptions and the conceptual mind (which is behind), the way I found that was while I was receding back into the "I". Actually, it is more like the Clear Light is super-imposed over everything, but it looked like it was in the middle of the stream of consciousness.. I think it comes out of the heart.

You can read a lot more of the posts from the "Turiya VS Dzogchen" thread here http://sgforums.com/...8/topics/455181:

 

anjali wrote:

 

Namdrol wrote:Cit is alaya, something relative which is dispensible, from the perspective of Dzogchen.

 

Ok. Here is a glossary definition of chit from a book of Ramana Maharshi's teachings: "consciousness; this is not the antonym of unconsciousness, it is unmediated self-awareness." Perhaps this is not a typical definition within the Advaita tradition or the one adopted within Dzogchen.

 

I'm not a scholar so I wouldn't be able to seriously debate this, but this definition of chit seems to align with what in Sanskrit might be called svasamvedana, or in Tibetan, rang-rig (rang gi rig pa), which has been translated as awareness of itself or self-reflexive awareness.

 

rang gis rig pa is not svasa?vedana. rang gi rig pa is rang rig. The latter has the genetive particle gi, where as the former was the instrumental particle gis.

 

Rang gi rig pa i.e. svasa?vedana means knowlege of itself. This is conditioned and relative because it is a self-knowing consciousness. This is mind, not nature of the mind.

 

so sor rang gis rig pa i.e. atmyavedana means "personal knowledge" and is the basis for rang rig in Dzogchen texts. We find this in constructions common in Dzogchen texts (as well as others) in the term so sor rang gis rig pa'i ye shes, or as Kapstein translates it "personally intuited gnosis". This nature of mind, not mind.

 

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:04 am

 

mzaur wrote:

 

asunthatneversets wrote:Dzogchen avoids (the perpetual evolution of) this fundamental delusion through the direct introduction of one's true nature, which is the union of clarity(luminosity) and emptiness. So right from the start, the mistaken ground of brahman is forsaken as a delusion. This is an empty cognizance, unestablished and illusory. The aspect of ones nature which is mistaken as an abiding substratum is the clarity of the natural state.

 

Are you saying that you do not need right view in Dzogchen? If we look at case study Jax, he received direct introduction numerous times from Rinpoche, yet his experience, as he describes it, is very Brahman.

 

Right view is imperative for those implementing dzogchen as a gradual path (as opposed to those rare few to immediately actualize realization). Any wrong misconception can throw one off the right path... and even once the natural state has been actualized becoming distracted from the view(or vision/tawa) is a defeating deviation. Even practitioners moving through the four visions are in danger of regression if perfect discipline isn't executed;

 

"Furthermore, when [the meditator] has emerged from the alaya-vijnana, because of the blazing lamp of the dharmakaya's luminosity, his nature remains free from elaboration. However, if he has not perfected his skill in the wisdom that shines out in vipasyana(meaning a meditational view employed in tögal in this context), then, being enveloped in the alaya as before, that lamp of luminosity will be extinguished and no longer present".

 

So to clarify what you found questionable, I was just saying that in dzogchen (and particularly semde) the natural state is presented as the union of clarity and emptiness, and once the view is introduced/discovered it is then reinforced further (by the teacher) as a luminous emptiness implying utter absence (even though these attributes are quite explicitly known upon it's actualization). In Advaita Vedanta the state sought after is presented as an abiding suchness equivalent to one's true nature as the eternal absolute (brahman).

Malcolm: The dharmakāya is endowed with light in conformity with it’s essence, emptiness and it’s nature, clarity.

 

mzaur: I think it would be very useful if you defined emptiness.... I take you do not mean a thought-free state of mind as emptiness is sometimes used.

 

Malcolm: Here emptiness refers to freedom from extremes.

 

asunthatneversets wrote: Rigpa(vidyā) is of a different flavor, in rigpa the localized substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or characteristics. Though rigpa(vidyā) can't be accurately described (for purposes of allowing one to get an idea of it's nature) it is sometimes said to be akin to space itself.

 

mzaur wrote: Abiding background is pure awareness separate from phenomena, right? Brahman or Self. Could you clarify what the bold means? Advaita defines Brahman as empty of attributes, but I surmise you are using empty in a different way.

 

I think I know what you mean. It's just that I bet some people read these forums and think empty means something different, like how Advaita uses it.

 

asunthatneversets: The abiding background can either be (i)awareness separate from phenomena or (ii)awareness merged with phenomena. In either case there is the faculty of awareness which is assumed to be existent. Advaita defines Brahman as being empty of attributes because it is 'that' which knows(the knower). The "knower" is attributeless because through investigation it is unaccounted for in anything perceivable or knowable. In advaita the term neti-neti is implemented (to discover this faculty) which means "not this, not that". So using this negative approach one disavows every conceivable aspect of one's experience until the "knower"(awareness) itself is all that remains. The process is much like; "I am not the body, because I am aware of the body - I am not my thoughts, because I am aware of my thoughts, etc...", so the process retracts into the realm of the formless observer. Since this formless awareness is posited to be unstained by any phenomenal appearance (or designation), it is said to be empty of attributes, unassailable and eternal. Awareness (then still assumed to be embodied) is the ātman, and upon actualizing the differentiation between the ātman and characteristics which allegedly compose the personal self(jīvātman), and external world, the next step is to merge the ātman with the brahman(universal self).

 

anjali wrote: How is this essentially different than thought-free wakefulness as discussed by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche?

 

Paul wrote: The state of rigpa is the recognition of the empty essence, the natural cognisance, and the union of these - the compassionate energy; the total transparency.

 

The notion of 'thought free' in Dzogchen is something that needs to be understood clearly. There can be mental events in rigpa. There are thoughts, but there is no grasping at them at all. They self liberate. Normal, dualistic thoughts are termed namtok, and in rigpa they are absent by definition. Ungrasped, self liberating mental events are nangwa. Nangwa are allowed by rigpa's openness. But they don't become concepts.

mzaur wrote:Also, I was wondering about the mirror analogy used in Dzogchen... as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche wrote in Crystal and Way of Light:

How is this analogy not talking about an abiding background?

 

asunthatneversets wrote: Yeah the mirror can be mistaken as representing an abiding background which has the capacity to reflect. But that is only if one focuses on the mirror as an object beholding reflections (which I'm sure is a common error but isn't what Rinpoche was suggesting). It's important to carefully investigate how the analogy is presented... it's not the mind is like the mirror, but the nature of mind is like the nature of the mirror, in that, the void nature of mind is empty yet luminous. So the essential quality (or nature) of the mirror is that it reflects, but is that essential quality or characteristic a tangible thing or suchness? Can you roll or bounce the mirror's capacity to reflect? Is that essence or capacity located anywhere? Is it blue or green? Or any color or shape? No, it isn't, it cannot be identified as 'this or that' yet it is known clear as day. And much like the mirror this innate, empty, luminous, natural essence and capacity of mind, reflects yet does not hold and remains unscathed. The reflections are not inherently part of the mirror's nature, but are product of it and inseparable from it... and "it"(the nature) is an indistinguishable quality which cannot be pigeonholed.

 

mazaur wrote: Thanks for your response.

 

Would it be accurate then to say that there is no mirror apart from the arising reflections, that indeed there actually is no mirror at all, only reflections?

 

asunthatneversets wrote: "All that arises is essentially no more real than a reflection, transparently pure and clear, beyond all definition or logical explanation. Yet the seeds of past action, karma, continue to cause further arising. Even so-know all that exists is ultimately void of self-nature utterly non-dual!"

- Nirmānakāya Buddha

 

"All dharmas are like reflected images,

clear and pure

without turbulence,

ungraspable, inexpressible,

truly arisen from cause and from action."

- (Different translation of the above quote)

 

(And when I say indistinguishable quality I don't mean to imply that it's a qualitative suchness or that the quality belongs to an implied connotative suchness, it's not established or unestablished in any way... being primordially unborn it evades even itself).

A quote from Malcolm explaining the differences with Dzogchen http://www.dharmawhe...php?f=66&t=7420:

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

However, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub], it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc.

So, what is non-duality in Buddhist terms? Here in this thread Malcolm makes a case of Dzogchen being inline with what Madhyamaka teaches; where "non-duality" does not share the same meaning between Advaita and Buddhism. http://www.dharmawhe...t=5370&start=80:

 

If one is attached to the external, inner or middle meditations,

It is certain that one has no opportunity to realize non-duality.

The Practice of Dzogchen, Longchen Rabjam, p.341

 

 

Acchantika wrote:

 

Namdrol/Malcolm wrote:It is an important issue only because it is at the root of much confusion for so many people.

Nondual means free from duality. Nonduality means the state or condition of being free from duality. Neither is a philosophical position, in any tradition that uses the terms.

 

I think overcomplicating the issue is what is at the root of confusion for so many.

 

Malcolm: There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

 

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

 

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

 

Malcolm: As Nāgārjuna states:

 

By relying on the conventional, the ultimate will be understood;

by realizing the ultimate, nirvana will be attained.

 

It is extremely important that key concepts be treated with care. It is also very important to avoid using language shared with other philosophical systems. I know any number of people who really are under the impression that there is really no difference between Dzogchen, Advaita and so on. And mostly, it is because of this pesky word "non-duality".

 

There is just as much danger of mental dulness and so with an eternalist view as there is with a nihilist view. In both cases, the conclusion will be reached that view is not important, karma does not matter, and so on.

 

Malcolm:The view of dzogchen is "gnas lugs med pa" i.e. no reality.

 

Acchantika wrote:

I mean only that in sems sde the central focus seems to be on a basic, unconditioned awareness that is free from duality, which, coincidentally, is the premise of Advaita and what "nondual" actually refers to, at least in the latter. That is where the perceived similarities end.

 

At the very least, I think it is understandable the two would be conflated by the uniformed. Like me.

 

Malcolm: One: bodhicitta in sems sde is not something that is considered real; cit is sat i.e. real in Advaita.

 

Two: there are two basic ways the term "non-dual" is used in Buddhism: free from subject and object perception (trivial) and free from ontic extremes (non-trivial).

 

Three, sometimes the word "non-dual" in translation is misleading. Here is an example from sem sde. This:

 

rgyu dang 'bras bu gnyis las 'das

sems can sangs rgyas gnyis med pas

sangs rgyas sems kyis sgrub ma byed

 

A better way to render it would be:

 

Beyond both cause and result,

since both sentient beings and buddhas to do not exist

buddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.

 

What is the difference you ask? Here there is a pair, a cause and a result i.e. sentient being are a cause, buddhas are a result. But since neither exist, therefore, buddhahood cannot be accomplished with mind.

 

These issues are often quite subtle.

 

Malcolm: If an explanation of emptiness does not conform to Dzogchen, then it does not conform to Madhyamaka since the explanation of emptiness in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are identical.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...t=7420&start=20

 

Malcolm: This is not the case. Dzogchen does not have a view to support or promulgate, and that is what affirming negations are for i.e. rejecting one thing in order to prove one's own perspective. By asserting that Dzogchen is asserting an affirming negation you are rendering Dzogchen inferior to Madhyamaka.

 

If Dzogchen is an affirming negation, than this statement from the Unwritten Tantra makes no sense:

 

“Apparent yet non-existent retinue, listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”

 

Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:

"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.

 

Since the wisdom appearances of people's own vidyā that are seen in personal experience are not established as entities of any kind, it is the appearance of the exhaustion of dharmatā."

 

Further, Vimalamitra states in The Lamp Summarizing Emptiness:

 

Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:

• 
  Everything arose from non-arising;
  even arising itself never arose.
  

Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning. [180]

Empty things are empty by nature.

Since the emptiness of dharmatā is present without being contrived and without being transformed in the basis, yogins are also liberated by remaining naturally without contrivance and without transformations.

 

And:

 

"That dharmatā emptiness dwells in a fortress and is captured in a fortress: the fortress (that is like a circle of spears in the sky) encircles (without a beginning or an end) dharmatā, i.e., existence is dharmatā, non-existence is dharmatā, both are dharmatā and neither are dharmatā. As such, [dharmatā] is surrounded by the names “clear and unclear”, “empty and not-empty”, “existence and non-existence”, “permanence and annihilation”, and so on. That lack of finding evidence itself is dharmatā. Further, in reality nothing exists apart from dharmatā. That being the case, that emptiness (as a mere representation, baseless, and non-referential, being non-existent like a pretense) is understood with scripture, accepted by reasoning, proven by argument, and captured in a fortress. Be confident that dharmatā is the unmistaken true emptiness.

 

Therefore, to describe Dzogchen as an affirming negation does not make any sense at all.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Many posts of Malcolm in this vein:

 

 

 

"In any event, the main point of the view in all four (or five if we included Jonang) schools is the experiential cultivation of a momentary unfabricated awareness. Other than that, the main differences are terminolgies related to the specifics of each schools presentation of their respective paths and methodologies."

 

 

"The most obvious distinguishing characteristic of sems is conceptuality. Time is not established per se, it is a conceptual construct. "

 

 

 

 

P.S. I bolded what I think are the key words.....

Edited November 12, 2012 by alwayson

[Jeff]

By "clear mind" you mean an absorption state or your usage of the term "awareness?" If it's the latter then your position is mistaken and is also an Eternalist view:

 

No, my definition of "clear mind" would be better described as "calm mind" in Dzogchen.

 

 

"Awareness" itself is even unestablished in Dzogchen.

 

 

Agreed.

 

[RongzomFan]

What do you recommend instead? Any particular books or websites that you think is appropriate to the above?

 

For Dzogchen, I prefer Malcolm's posts on Dharma Wheel.

 

For Madhyamaka, "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl B and of course also Malcolm's posts on Dharma Wheel.

[Jeff]

Another point that I think is important to differentiate Dzogchen (and other Atiyoga paths)...

 

From Chogyal Namkhai Norbu (Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State) on Dzogchen Tantra...

 

The Tantras are teachings based on the knowledge and application of energy. Their origin is not to be found in the oral teachings of a master, as is the case with the Sutras taught by the Buddha, but stems from the manifestation in pure vision of a realized being. A pure manifestation arises through the energy of the elements in their subtle and luminous aspect, while our karmic vision is based on their gross or material aspect. To receive this type of transmission, it is therefore necessary to have the capacity to perceive the subtle dimension of light.

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

"Substrate consciousness" sounds like it would be the alaya (kun-gzhi) which is described as the state of ignorance in dzogchen http://www.dharmawhe...php?f=48&t=6942

 

Hi Simple Jack

Hmmm.. Not sure what kun-gzhi is.

Is this correct?:

link: http://www.berzinarc..._impure_02.html

All four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism accept that the Chittamatra (sems-tsam, mind-only) system of Indian Buddhist tenets asserts alayavijnana (kun-gzhi rnam-shes, all-encompassing foundation consciousness, storehouse consciousness) as a truly existent (bden-grub) unclear consciousness that underlies all moments of cognition before enlightenment. It serves as the basis for imputation of the habits of unawareness and of karma, continues from lifetime to lifetime, but ceases with the attainment of Buddhahood.

 

 

Here is Alan Wallace's definition of the substrate conciousness. It sounds like they are the same.

 

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

 

 

or this one:

link: http://www.alanwalla...tates Essay.pdf

 

 

The above account of javana and the bhavaºga is based on the Buddha’s

discourses recorded in the Pali language and their earliest commentaries. A

remarkably similar description of the ground state of consciousness appears in

the later Great Perfection (Dzogchen) school of Tibetan Buddhism. Here a

distinction is made between the substrate (alaya) and the substrate consciousness

(alayavijñana). Tibetan contemplatives describe the substrate as the objective,

empty space of the mind. This vacuum state is immaterial like space, a blank,

unthinking void into which all objective appearances of the physical senses and

mental perception dissolve when one falls asleep; and it is out of this vacuum

that appearances re-emerge upon waking.6

The subjective consciousness of this mental vacuum is called the substrate

consciousness. In the natural course of a life, this is repeatedly experienced in

dreamless sleep and finally experienced in the moment before death. A

contemplative may consciously probe this dimension of consciousness through

the practice of meditative quiescence, in which discursive thoughts become

dormant and all appearances of oneself, others, one’s body and one’s

environment vanish. At this point, as in the cases of sleeping and dying, the

mind is drawn inwards and the physical senses become dormant. What remains

is a state of radiant, clear consciousness that is the basis for the emergence of all

appearances to an individual’s mind-stream. All phenomena appearing to

sensory and mental perception are imbued with the clarity of this substrate

consciousness. Like the reflections of the planets and stars in a pool of limpid,

clear water, so do the appearances of the entire phenomenal world appear within

this empty, clear substrate consciousness. Contemplatives who have penetrated

to this state of consciousness describe it as “an unfluctuating state, in which one

experiences bliss like the warmth of a fire, luminosity like the dawn, and

nonconceptuality like an ocean unmoved by waves.”7

 

 

 

You're resting in the alaya, which is not the clear light. Unfortunetely the "Turiya VS Dzogchen" thread was taken down from DW, though there's a couple links to some quotes from that thread. From what I took from that thread [http://thetaobums.co...on/page__st__48:]

 

 

Your description of "...recede backwards, inwards;" "the way I found that was while I was receding back into the "I;" or your use of "receding into the subject" is the definition of resting in the alaya which still imputes a subject and object in experience.

 

Not really. My instructions are, if you have an object, turn your attention 180 degrees around and go back. You keep doing that until there is no more object..

 

 

So, accroding to ChNN a person isn't truly considered a dzogchen practitioner until you've reached the stage of released shine. A person brought this up on DW http://www.dharmawhe...hp?f=48&t=10080

 

The above descriptions of released shine sound like a more advanced stage of practice, one that isn't contrived like "regular shine."

 

This is the quote:

The witnessing state is equivalent to stabilized shamatha (shiné), once shamatha is stabilized one is essentially proficient in "really good dualistic mindfulness" (as you said). After stabilized shiné, next step is released shiné and once released shiné is achieved and stabilized, one is said to be officially practicing dzogchen.

 

"When you have achieved released shiné and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a dzogchen practitioner."

- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

 

 

The interesting quote that your presented (they are all interesting, but this is one I've thought for a long time) is this one:

 

4. There are Transcendental Meditation practitioners who claim to be aware in dreamless sleep....is this not a case of sleeping in the clear light?

 

No.

 

and this:

So the TM practitioner with stable witnessing in waking and sleeping just has really good dualistic mindfulness?

 

The state or position of being firmly established in "the witness" is merely being stabilized in the alaya(kun gzhi). The term "witnessing" in and of itself suggests observing phenomena from a particular standpoint. Stable witnessing is a state of detachment, In being firmly established in the "witness" phenomena appear as they normally do except there's no feeling of it being "me" or "I". The "me"(or 'that' which witnesses) is posited to be something other. So in witnessing, the body and other phenomena appear detached from the "knower". And 'that'(pure knowingness) which is disconnected is then posited to be beyond anything "knowable" because it is that which knows. 'That' which knows(pure knowingness/awareness) is considered to be a substantiated and localized substratum(even though it is considered to be formless) and for that reason it is the alaya. To describe this state, an analogy of a movie patron viewing images on a theater screen is sometimes used.

 

The witnessing state is equivalent to stabilized œamatha (shiné), once œamatha is stabilized one is essentially proficient in "really good dualistic mindfulness" (as you said). After stabilized shiné, next step is released shiné and once released shiné is achieved and stabilized, one is said to be officially practicing dzogchen.

 

"When you have achieved released shiné and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a dzogchen practitioner."

- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

 

Even those proficient in advaita vedanta downplay the witnessing state as dualistic, as shown in this dialogue between Nisargadatta Maharaj and a questioner.

 

Q: Well, you told me that I am the Supreme Reality, I believe you. What next is there for me to do?

M: I told you already. Discover all that you are not. Body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, time, space, being and not-being, this or that - nothing concrete or abstract you can point out is you. A mere verbal statement will not do - you may even repeat a formula endlessly without any result whatsoever. You must watch yourself continuously - particularly your mind - moment by moment, missing nothing. This witnessing is essential for the separation of the self from the not-self.

 

Q: The witnessing - is it not my real nature?

M: For witnessing, there must be something else to witness. We are still in duality!

 

Q: What about witnessing the witness? Awareness of awareness?

M: Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and discover what you are not. Nothing else matters.

 

So yes a TM practitioner with stable witnessing in waking and sleeping essentially has excellent dualistic mindfulness.

 

The reason that interests me is because of the mistruths that Yogani at AYP has made up regarding his Deep Meditation (and TM).. but that is another story..

 

 

 

YES! Once the mind settles (shamatha), the whole mind collapses and receeds downwards towards the heart. You can see a peripheral shine of golden light shrink and become smaller and then flow downwards. Feels like you are about to die. That is where I am stuck.. However, that state was obtained by receeding into the subject. That one was obtained by letting be, with neither grasping or averting of thoughts..

 

Thank you for all the posts and quotes. I appreciate it.

 

TI

Edited November 13, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

I read about your experience in your thread "Meaning Clear Light" [http://thetaobums.co...ng-clear-light/.] You're describing the "I AM" phase of insight. I think you need to read up on the difference between "the clear light" and rigpa in Dzogchen. This is from the Berzin Archives http://www.berzinarc...dvanced/dzogche/basic_points/introduction_dzogchen.html:

 

Hi Simple Jack.. Too bad you read that post.. Did you read this one?

http://thetaobums.com/topic/23952-feels-like-death-shamatha-before-bed/

 

I wouldn't mind hearing what you have to say about that experience..

 

Again, thank you very much for posting and quoting.. It has taken a while to go through it all, and it has definately given me some insight.

 

TI