[C T]

Excerp from chapter 25, Quintessential Dzogchen:

 

Tulku Urgyen...

 

"Everything that is perceived as an object is ultimately ying, basic space.

Needless to say, most things don't appear this way to us. Therefore, the

other four elements, earth, water, fire and wind, are not used as an

example; only the element of space itself is easily comprehended as

being empty. Still, the other four elements are inherently empty. If we

investigate where earth, water, fire and wind come from, we will not

find a source. Right at this moment, is there an ultimate place where

the four major elements are located? Try to find that. Is there a certain

location where the four major elements vanish into? Can we say,

"They disappeared into such and such a place?" They are actually

beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing. This describes the outer ying,

the basic space of whatever is perceived. When we discover that

all external objects composed of the four elements do not arise from

anywhere, do not dwell anywhere, and do not cease into some place --

that everything is beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing -- that is called

discovering the basic space of phenomena.

 

Similarly, when we look into mind, the thinker, where does it come from?

Where does it dwell? Where does it disappear to? In this way, we will

discover the inner space that is totally beyond arising, dwelling and

ceasing. So, if external space is beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing,

and inner space is also beyond (the 3 modes), how can we make

distinctions between the two? Any separation is only a matter of two

different names.

 

Everything we perceive is made out of visual forms, sounds, smells,

tastes and textures. Look into these and investigate: Where do these

arise from? Where do they dwell? Where do they go to? When we

really examine this way, we find there is no such thing as coming into

being, dwelling anywhere, or disappearing. On a coarse level, the four

major elements of earth, water, fire and wind, and on a more subtle

perceptual level, all perceived objects of form, sound, smell, taste and

texture are all discovered to be by nature beyond arising, dwelling and

ceasing. When both the perceived objects and the perceiving subject

are found to be beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing -- utterly empty --

everything is then just basic space. This is what is referred to as ying.

In Sanskrit, the word is dhatu.

 

Ying and yeshe, basic space and wakefulness, are primordially indivisible,

because our basic state is the unity of emptiness and cognizance. This is

also called the unity of space and wakefulness. The cognizant quality in

unity is called rigpa, awareness.

 

This basic state, the unity of being empty and cognizant, is at the very heart

of all sentient beings. It is inherent within the thinking that takes place in all

sentient beings at any moment. All beings possess this nature that is the

unity of space and wakefulness, but if they don't know this, it doesn't help

them. Instead of being suffused with awareness that knows itself, sentient

beings become entangled in conceptualizing subject and object, thereby

endlessly creating further states of samsara. All this occur because they

do not know their own nature.

 

The knowing of this nature that is beyond complexity or constructs is called

rigpa. Buddhas are empty cognizance suffused with awareness, the knowing

quality, whereas the state of mind of sentient beings is empty cognizance

suffused with ignorance, with unknowing. We cannot say there is any sentient

being whose mind is not, at its core, the unity of emptiness and cognizance.

But by not knowing this unity, their minds become a unity of empty cognizance

suffused with ignorance.

 

Whatever appears due to causes and conditions (me: including vidya and avidya)

is ultimately nothing but a moment of mere perception. Perception never really

arises or comes into being, it never remains, and therefore it never ceases to

be. Therefore, everything is ying, basic space beyond arising, dwelling and

ceasing. All outer perceived objects are actually space that neither arises,

nor remains, nor ceases. At the same time, the perceiving mind is beyond

arising, dwelling and ceasing as well. It is not some thing that comes into being,

remains, or ceases. So, it is not only the mind that is empty while objects are

real and concrete. If that were true, there could not be any mingling of space

and awareness. Both the outside and the inside, both perceived objects and

the perceiving subject, are already beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing.

Therefore, it is possible to train in mingling space and awareness.

 

To reiterate, perceptions or appearances are empty; the perceiver, the mind,

is also empty. Consequently, ying and rigpa are a unity. At present, however,

we have split ying and rigpa into two, into this here and that there, and we do

not have this unity. (me: thereby giving rise to a non-existent causal state,

commonly referred to as sems). Doesn't it seem to us that appearances and

mind are two different things? Everything seems at present to be dualistic --

perceived objects and the perceiving mind -- and this perception endures as

long as we have conceptual thinking. (me: Sems arise and cease in degrees,

in tandem with the degree of involvement in conceptual activity. Therefore,

sems [vis-a-vis avidya] does not have any inherent existence, and anything

which does not have any inherent existence cannot be a part of something that

is also empty of inherency, namely a self).

 

Everything with concrete substance is called form, and all forms are the unity

of appearance and emptiness (earlier on, Rinpoche used the vase analogy,

to indicate perceived separateness of space inside and outside the vase):

this is what is meant by the vajra body. All sounds are resounding and yet

empty: this is vajra speech. When we recognize awareness, we realize it is

free of arising, dwelling and ceasing. That is the vajra mind. Whatever is

devoid of arising, dwelling and ceasing is empty. This is exactly what is

meant in the Choying Dzo: "Everything seen, heard or thought, is the

adornment of space and appears as the continuity of Body, Speech and

Mind." In short, everything, without the exception of even a single dust mote,

is of the nature of the three vajras."

Edited May 6, 2014 by C T

[doc benway]

 

So, if external space is beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing,

and inner space is also beyond (the 3 modes), how can we make

distinctions between the two? Any separation is only a matter of two

different names.

- Tulku Urgyen

 

 

Therefore,

sems [vis-a-vis avidya] does not have any inherent existence, and anything

which does not have any inherent existence cannot be a part of something that

is also empty of inherency, namely a self).

- CT

 

Can you comment further? These two excerpts from your post seem at odds with each other.

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

 

Can you comment further? These two excerpts from your post seem at odds with each other.

Sems is conventionally the mind of an entity. CT's point is rather redundant that a conventional X cannot inherently belong to another conventional X. Since there's no such thing as inherency, such an assertion is akin to proclaiming the sky is blue... obviously.

 

Haven't had a chance to respond to his last post but will do so ASAP, there are quite a few things to address.

[doc benway]

Sems is conventionally the mind of an entity. CT's point is rather redundant that a conventional X cannot inherently belong to another conventional X. Since there's no such thing as inherency, such an assertion is akin to proclaiming the sky is blue... obviously.

 

Good explanation although can we not subject sems to the same analysis regarding its arising, dwelling, and ceasing, thereby rendering it indistinguishable from inner and outer space? Then we are simply dealing with an issue of nomenclature as pointed out by Tulku Urgyen.

[asunthatneversets]

Excerp from chapter 25, Quintessential Dzogchen:

 

Tulku Urgyen...

 

"Everything that is perceived as an object is ultimately ying, basic space.

Needless to say, most things don't appear this way to us. Therefore, the

other four elements, earth, water, fire and wind, are not used as an

example; only the element of space itself is easily comprehended as

being empty. Still, the other four elements are inherently empty. If we

investigate where earth, water, fire and wind come from, we will not

find a source. Right at this moment, is there an ultimate place where

the four major elements are located? Try to find that. Is there a certain

location where the four major elements vanish into? Can we say,

"They disappeared into such and such a place?" They are actually

beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing. This describes the outer ying,

the basic space of whatever is perceived. When we discover that

all external objects composed of the four elements do not arise from

anywhere, do not dwell anywhere, and do not cease into some place --

that everything is beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing -- that is called

discovering the basic space of phenomena.

 

Similarly, when we look into mind, the thinker, where does it come from?

Where does it dwell? Where does it disappear to? In this way, we will

discover the inner space that is totally beyond arising, dwelling and

ceasing. So, if external space is beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing,

and inner space is also beyond (the 3 modes), how can we make

distinctions between the two? Any separation is only a matter of two

different names.

 

Everything we perceive is made out of visual forms, sounds, smells,

tastes and textures. Look into these and investigate: Where do these

arise from? Where do they dwell? Where do they go to? When we

really examine this way, we find there is no such thing as coming into

being, dwelling anywhere, or disappearing. On a coarse level, the four

major elements of earth, water, fire and wind, and on a more subtle

perceptual level, all perceived objects of form, sound, smell, taste and

texture are all discovered to be by nature beyond arising, dwelling and

ceasing. When both the perceived objects and the perceiving subject

are found to be beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing -- utterly empty --

everything is then just basic space. This is what is referred to as ying.

In Sanskrit, the word is dhatu.

 

Ying and yeshe, basic space and wakefulness, are primordially indivisible,

because our basic state is the unity of emptiness and cognizance. This is

also called the unity of space and wakefulness. The cognizant quality in

unity is called rigpa, awareness.

 

This basic state, the unity of being empty and cognizant, is at the very heart

of all sentient beings. It is inherent within the thinking that takes place in all

sentient beings at any moment. All beings possess this nature that is the

unity of space and wakefulness, but if they don't know this, it doesn't help

them. Instead of being suffused with awareness that knows itself, sentient

beings become entangled in conceptualizing subject and object, thereby

endlessly creating further states of samsara. All this occur because they

do not know their own nature.

 

The knowing of this nature that is beyond complexity or constructs is called

rigpa. Buddhas are empty cognizance suffused with awareness, the knowing

quality, whereas the state of mind of sentient beings is empty cognizance

suffused with ignorance, with unknowing. We cannot say there is any sentient

being whose mind is not, at its core, the unity of emptiness and cognizance.

But by not knowing this unity, their minds become a unity of empty cognizance

suffused with ignorance.

 

Whatever appears due to causes and conditions (me: including vidya and avidya)

is ultimately nothing but a moment of mere perception. Perception never really

arises or comes into being, it never remains, and therefore it never ceases to

be. Therefore, everything is ying, basic space beyond arising, dwelling and

ceasing. All outer perceived objects are actually space that neither arises,

nor remains, nor ceases. At the same time, the perceiving mind is beyond

arising, dwelling and ceasing as well. It is not some thing that comes into being,

remains, or ceases. So, it is not only the mind that is empty while objects are

real and concrete. If that were true, there could not be any mingling of space

and awareness. Both the outside and the inside, both perceived objects and

the perceiving subject, are already beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing.

Therefore, it is possible to train in mingling space and awareness.

 

To reiterate, perceptions or appearances are empty; the perceiver, the mind,

is also empty. Consequently, ying and rigpa are a unity. At present, however,

we have split ying and rigpa into two, into this here and that there, and we do

not have this unity. (me: thereby giving rise to a non-existent causal state,

commonly referred to as sems). Doesn't it seem to us that appearances and

mind are two different things? Everything seems at present to be dualistic --

perceived objects and the perceiving mind -- and this perception endures as

long as we have conceptual thinking. (me: Sems arise and cease in degrees,

in tandem with the degree of involvement in conceptual activity. Therefore,

sems [vis-a-vis avidya] does not have any inherent existence, and anything

which does not have any inherent existence cannot be a part of something that

is also empty of inherency, namely a self).

 

Everything with concrete substance is called form, and all forms are the unity

of appearance and emptiness (earlier on, Rinpoche used the vase analogy,

to indicate perceived separateness of space inside and outside the vase):

this is what is meant by the vajra body. All sounds are resounding and yet

empty: this is vajra speech. When we recognize awareness, we realize it is

free of arising, dwelling and ceasing. That is the vajra mind. Whatever is

devoid of arising, dwelling and ceasing is empty. This is exactly what is

meant in the Choying Dzo: "Everything seen, heard or thought, is the

adornment of space and appears as the continuity of Body, Speech and

Mind." In short, everything, without the exception of even a single dust mote,

is of the nature of the three vajras."

Aside from the fact that the way you went about inputting your commentary into the fabric of this quote is bad form, the fact that the entire quote is meticulously describing the difference between rigpa and marigpa while you attempt to marginalize the two (in the quote itself - which contradicts your assertions), is rather ridiculous.

[asunthatneversets]

Due to the ripening of karma, we cannot know or distinguish when confusion can suddenly dawn as wisdom, and vice versa.

Wisdom is surely known when pure prajñā appears. The knowledge of wisdom is called vidyā [rig pa], and it is a non-conceptual and fully experiential species of discernment that the entire praxis of Atiyoga is centered on.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the difference between ignorance and wisdom is one that is vague, to the degree that the possibility of discerning one from the other is either (i) not possible, or (ii) that if it is possible it is truly more a case of fabricated wishful thinking rooted in intellectual confirmation biases.

 

However such assertions are the true fabrications, which are quite inaccurate and misleading in my opinion.

 

It is true that karmic proliferation is the sustenance of ignorance, but that does not mean it indefinitely prevents the recognition of wisdom. Wisdom is simply the dharmatā of mind, it is always latently present because the mind, being a mere byproduct of ignorance and karmic formation, is a conditioned dharmin. All dharmins have a dharmatā because all allegedly conditioned things, faculties, states etc., are abstractive fabrications which in truth lack inherency. Body, voice and mind are no exceptions.

 

Dharmatā is unconditioned by definition, and therefore is not conditioned by karmic propensities. Propensities can only obscure dharmatā due to the confusion they create and maintain.

 

This process, a continuum, will persist until full realization that there is fundamentally no such thing as Bodhi.

Fundamentally, everything is no such thing, yet that is why conventional processes can occur and have application in our experiences. There's fundamentally no such thing as going to the store to buy groceries, yet a trip to the store to purchase food apparently occurs. The conventional occurrence includes all of the implications a given process would suggest, such as purpose, causes, results and so on.

 

The same goes for bodhi or awakening. The fact that liberation is merely a conventional result to an equally conventional process does not mean no apparent liberation occurs. It in fact does, but why? Because bodhi is simply a cessation, just as the extinguishing of a flame is a cessation. What is it that ceases? Cause for the further arising of afflictive processes, which means liberation is the cessation of cause for the further proliferation of ignorance.

 

As Buddha himself said, enlightenment comes into existence hand in hand with samsaric ignorance, and will persist no longer than the existence of same.

Right, but this does not negate the conventional validity of nirvāna, just as it does not negate the conventional validity of samsara, or anything else for that matter.

 

With the cessation of ignorance, both wisdom and mind extinguish simultaneously ~ at that point, the conceptual self and its associated dualistic tendencies evaporate like dew in the morning sun.

In the conventional format when ignorance ceases, wisdom remains. Even if you wanted to go the extra steps to explain that wisdom is technically and ultimately a convention, if you include wisdom in that relative dichotomy, the cessation of that dichotomy and the knowledge which ensues as a result of that cessation would still be wisdom.

 

Also, the cessation of ignorance can very well be a temporary lapse depending on the condition of the individual. In the case of a lapse or temporary collapse of ignorance, the mind would not extinguish but would simply collapse temporarily. A full exhaustion of ignorance occurs at the time of buddhahood because the karmic propensities are exhausted i.e. the cause for the arising of affliction is exhausted.

 

The so-called conventional self does not truly have associated tendencies, but rather is itself those tendencies. Same with mind; mind does not posses tendencies, but instead is precisely afflictive tendencies and propensities. The terms 'self' and 'mind' are simply conventional labels which are ascribed to these patterns.

 

Analogous to this, we can ask ourselves, With the next evening's appearance of dew... can we say its a different kind of dew to that formed previously? Can we say its the same? We cannot. So, in the same way, we are not to discern with certainty the presence or absence of one or the other, except while engaged in establishing contrived equipoise (with the aim of attaining uncontrived equipoise eventually).

The absence of ignorance is uncontrived equipoise by definition due to the cessation of grasping. Vidyā implies subtle non-grasping because the reference point of mind [sems] has collapsed as a result of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid].

 

In the context of a path such as Dzogchen, a contrived equipoise is not equipoise [mnyam bzhag].

 

Overall though if one is unable to discern with certainty (certainty being an innate attribute of a definitive recognition event), then vidyā is not present and the view is still inferential.

 

Therefore, in essence, they (wisdom and ignorance) are neither the same nor different,

In essence (meaning; ultimately) anything you can compare is neither the same nor different, but you're again missing the point that recognition of the emptiness of something means wisdom is implied. The valid cognition, free of knowledge obscurations which is cognizing the non-arising of phenomena, is wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna].

 

since both vidya and avidya do not inherently exist in the context of there being a static, inherently existing human form to experience one or the other.

You are mixing up conventional and ultimate, which is causing you to negate too much and err into nihilism.

 

Vidyā and avidyā do not lack inherency because there is no inherent "human form to experience" them, they lack inherency because inherency is impossible and is in actuality nothing more than a misconception of afflicted minds. That is why emptiness can be realized, if inherency were real then it would be impossible to realize emptiness. But, because all dharmas are empty by nature, inherency is merely a figment of ignorance which results from non-recognition of said empty nature [dharmatā].

 

Vidyā and avidyā's lack of inherency does not negate their conventional validity, if you assert that their conventional application is negated (by the fact that they lack inherency) then this is nihilism and is grasping at the ultimate, which is just delusion.

 

Yet, at the same time, vidya/avidya cannot not exist, ultimately, on the basis of the transiency and ephemeral nature of both existence and non-existence occurring simultaneously.

No, the reason they cannot ultimately lack existence is because they are empty, as was established above. What is empty is free from extremes.

 

The part about the "transiency and ephemeral nature of both existence and non-existence occurring simultaneously" doesn't really make sense, nor would it be relevant if it did.

 

Existence and non-existence are misunderstandings which appear concomitantly with the misperception of conditioned phenomena. Existence, non-existence, both and neither are realized to be erroneous notions upon recognizing the non-arising (or unconditioned nature) of so-called conditioned dharmins.

 

On this note, we are going to be caught if we are to form notions, on an ultimate level, about any distinguishing facets that can be pointed out as vidya or avidya.

Well luckily for us, forming notions on an ultimate level is nothing we have to worry about, so there's total freedom to form and implement whatever notions we want.

 

Conventionally, yes, but ultimately, no.

That goes for any and everything, and therefore goes without saying.

 

It is not possible to distinguish vidya without also pointing out avidya. The aim of Great Perfection is to go beyond both.

There is no "beyond both". Dzogchen applies to you. Your nature is primordially pure [ka dag] and is therefore neither compromised by avidyā nor improved by vidyā, but you aren't that nature. All you can do is have knowledge [vidyā] of that nature, or be ignorant [avidyā] of it. One basis, two paths, two results (suffering, or the cessation thereof).

Edited May 7, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Anderson]

 

 

It is true that karmic proliferation is the sustenance of ignorance, but that does not mean it indefinitely prevents the recognition of wisdom. Wisdom is simply the dharmatā of mind, it is always latently present because the mind, being a mere byproduct of ignorance and karmic formation, is a conditioned dharmin. All dharmins have a dharmatā because all allegedly conditioned things, faculties, states etc., are abstractive fabrications which in truth lack inherency. Body, voice and mind are no exceptions.

 

Dharmatā is unconditioned by definition, and therefore is not conditioned by karmic propensities. Propensities can only obscure dharmatā due to the confusion they create and maintain.

 

 

 

 

 

This is how CNNr describes dharmata:

 

When we open our eyes we see objects.Through our ears we hear sounds.In the same way through all of our senses we have contact with earth, with objects.At first,generally, we have the contact.Then this presence and sensation comunicates to the mind and then there is the mental judgement of it afterwards.When one still has not yet entered into mental judgement , this is called dzin med when there is no mental creation yet entered into things.But even if there is no mental construct formulated , nevertheless everything is very present and is there to the senses, present.And so this word snang-ba which can mean vision also means sensation.It arises and appears externally.This means that there is always contact between the senses and that which is outside.Not entering into judgement, one remains present in this state.Chos means existence, whatever thing that arises , all phenomena,dharma in Sanskrit.Nyind means in its own condition.

And so this is why we say here chos nyid the vission of all phenomena.So not limiting yourself ,not creating anything mentally, not entering into a concept, one remains present continually in this state.So in conclusion what we mean is that when a thought arises in the mind , one has not entered into a mental judgement of the thought.But it's not that one is sleepy in that moment.One is absolutely present right there.If one finds oneself present in that state that is beyond dualistic concepts.And even if you don't enter into a dualistic concept nevertheless is absolutely present there, including all the contact with your senses.

For example if i remain in that presence for a moment even if somebody is doing something , i can make a mental note of it, even if i don't actually enter into following the thought about what he's doing.If a person were to pass in front of me i've perfectly well seen that person.Because the functioning of the senses has in no way been blocked.But i am not letting the mind enter into following with a judgement about what has happened.So it's a moment in which all the senses are present and all the vision is present.And so being present being in that state one finds oneself in what we call dharmata.

 

To me this sounds more like mindfulness where one is present or in a state of ordinary presence in whatever circumstances one mind find oneself.

A state where one is relaxed and not involved with any occurrences , letting them arise and dissolve of their own accord without any modification or appropriation..

 

So how is this dharmata description of CNNr which sounds absolutely ordinary and it looks like a state which anybody who has very little experience would understand it without too much effort compares to your dharmata aka wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of , knowledge which is called vidya or rigpa?

 

Another thing is that rinpoche doesnt talk about any recognition here.Since one by having all those apsects together is in IT already, is in the right place.You can understand that you are in the right place by the signs of that place.

[doc benway]

This is how CNNr describes dharmata:

 

When we open our eyes we see objects.Through our ears we hear sounds.In the same way through all of our senses we have contact with earth, with objects.At first,generally, we have the contact.Then this presence and sensation comunicates to the mind and then there is the mental judgement of it afterwards.When one still has not yet entered into mental judgement , this is called dzin med when there is no mental creation yet entered into things.But even if there is no mental construct formulated , nevertheless everything is very present and is there to the senses, present.And so this word snang-ba which can mean vision also means sensation.It arises and appears externally.This means that there is always contact between the senses and that which is outside.Not entering into judgement, one remains present in this state.Chos means existence, whatever thing that arises , all phenomena,dharma in Sanskrit.Nyind means in its own condition.

And so this is why we say here chos nyid the vission of all phenomena.So not limiting yourself ,not creating anything mentally, not entering into a concept, one remains present continually in this state.So in conclusion what we mean is that when a thought arises in the mind , one has not entered into a mental judgement of the thought.But it's not that one is sleepy in that moment.One is absolutely present right there.If one finds oneself present in that state that is beyond dualistic concepts.And even if you don't enter into a dualistic concept nevertheless is absolutely present there, including all the contact with your senses.

For example if i remain in that presence for a moment even if somebody is doing something , i can make a mental note of it, even if i don't actually enter into following the thought about what he's doing.If a person were to pass in front of me i've perfectly well seen that person.Because the functioning of the senses has in no way been blocked.But i am not letting the mind enter into following with a judgement about what has happened.So it's a moment in which all the senses are present and all the vision is present.And so being present being in that state one finds oneself in what we call dharmata.

 

To me this sounds more like mindfulness where one is present or in a state of ordinary presence in whatever circumstances one mind find oneself.

A state where one is relaxed and not involved with any occurrences , letting them arise and dissolve of their own accord without any modification or appropriation..

 

So how is this dharmata description of CNNr which sounds absolutely ordinary and it looks like a state which anybody who has very little experience would understand it without too much effort compares to your dharmata aka wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of , knowledge which is called vidya or rigpa?

 

Another thing is that rinpoche doesnt talk about any recognition here.Since one by having all those apsects together is in IT already, is in the right place.You can understand that you are in the right place by the signs of that place.

It may sound "absolutely ordinary," and, in one sense it is, but that is quite deceiving.

First one must become aware of the quality of being in which one is not dragged around and buffeted by thought.

Then one must become familiar with and stable in that state.

Not a trivial matter, IME.

The following of thought and the sensory consciousnesses and the generation of judgements are near instantaneous and vary from gross to incredibly subtle.

I don't find this to be something easily achieved for substantial periods of time.

Nor do I think most practitioners are terribly stable in this state of non-attaching cognizance.

I think RInpoche is pointing to recognition because that recognition has to occur before familiarity and stability are achieved.

[asunthatneversets]

This is how CNNr describes dharmata:

 

When we open our eyes we see objects.Through our ears we hear sounds.In the same way through all of our senses we have contact with earth, with objects.At first,generally, we have the contact.Then this presence and sensation comunicates to the mind and then there is the mental judgement of it afterwards.When one still has not yet entered into mental judgement , this is called dzin med when there is no mental creation yet entered into things.But even if there is no mental construct formulated , nevertheless everything is very present and is there to the senses, present.And so this word snang-ba which can mean vision also means sensation.It arises and appears externally.This means that there is always contact between the senses and that which is outside.Not entering into judgement, one remains present in this state.Chos means existence, whatever thing that arises , all phenomena,dharma in Sanskrit.Nyind means in its own condition.

And so this is why we say here chos nyid the vission of all phenomena.So not limiting yourself ,not creating anything mentally, not entering into a concept, one remains present continually in this state.So in conclusion what we mean is that when a thought arises in the mind , one has not entered into a mental judgement of the thought.But it's not that one is sleepy in that moment.One is absolutely present right there.If one finds oneself present in that state that is beyond dualistic concepts.And even if you don't enter into a dualistic concept nevertheless is absolutely present there, including all the contact with your senses.

For example if i remain in that presence for a moment even if somebody is doing something , i can make a mental note of it, even if i don't actually enter into following the thought about what he's doing.If a person were to pass in front of me i've perfectly well seen that person.Because the functioning of the senses has in no way been blocked.But i am not letting the mind enter into following with a judgement about what has happened.So it's a moment in which all the senses are present and all the vision is present.And so being present being in that state one finds oneself in what we call dharmata.

 

To me this sounds more like mindfulness where one is present or in a state of ordinary presence in whatever circumstances one mind find oneself.

A state where one is relaxed and not involved with any occurrences , letting them arise and dissolve of their own accord without any modification or appropriation..

 

So how is this dharmata description of CNNr which sounds absolutely ordinary and it looks like a state which anybody who has very little experience would understand it without too much effort compares to your dharmata aka wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of , knowledge which is called vidya or rigpa?

 

Another thing is that rinpoche doesnt talk about any recognition here.Since one by having all those apsects together is in IT already, is in the right place.You can understand that you are in the right place by the signs of that place.

 

I'm not sure if your citation above is from The Cycle of Day and Night or from Collected Talks Vol. III, but either way you omitted the sections where he discusses mother dharmatā [chos nyid ma].

 

ChNN is very clear to separate ordinary mindfulness [dran pa] from rigpa.

 

How does that description compare to my dharmatā a.k.a. wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of? Well, if you didn't cherry pick a single quote regarding dharmatā from Norbu Rinpoche and actually sought to discover what he says about it in depth, you might find that my summation is not very different from his, here are a few more quotes from him:

 

"The certainty that all samsara and nirvana are the energy manifestation of the space of dharmatā is the prajñā of the utterly pure space, thus thoroughly understand that its realization is the wisdom of rigpa!"

 

"Having experienced non-thought contemplation in the primordial pure emptiness dimension of the essence, the nature of instant rigpa is established as the manifest dharmatā"

 

"The emptiness that has no function is not the same as the total emptiness of our real nature, the dharmatā or dharmakāya. This emptiness can have infinite manifestations."

 

"You see, each individual has infinite potentiality, in that the state of the individual is also the center of the universe. For example, I have in my state infinite potentiality, and that potentiality is the center of the universe, but it means that for me, not for you. You are another individual, you have infinite potentiality and yours for you is also the center of the universe. Yet being the center of the universe is not for egotistical and selfish feelings, or a feeling of being more important than others. Rather it refers to what is the real potentiality of each individual, that is the real meaning of dharmatā. Generally people have no knowledge of dharmatā."

 

Norbu Rinpoche citing Longchenpa:

"Regarding the ultimate dimension and wisdom of the fruit that is total self-liberation beyond action, the ultimate dimension, that does not abide in samsara or in nirvana, is single, indefinable and beyond striving. When empty wisdom arises in it, beyond the limits of view and meditation, one understands the sameness of all phenomena of happiness and suffering: this is called 'the ultimate dimension and wisdom of dharmatā beyond action'."

 

Rinpoche talks about recognition all the time, discovery, understanding our nature directly and experientially. His entire teaching revolves around recognizing our nature and he discusses it every single retreat he does. You have selective hearing if you assert otherwise.

Edited May 7, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Anderson]

It may sound "absolutely ordinary," and, in one sense it is, but that is quite deceiving.

First one must become aware of the quality of being in which one is not dragged around and buffeted by thought.

Then one must become familiar with and stable in that state.

Not a trivial matter, IME.

The following of thought and the sensory consciousnesses and the generation of judgements are near instantaneous and vary from gross to incredibly subtle.

I don't find this to be something easily achieved for substantial periods of time.

Nor do I think most practitioners are terribly stable in this state of non-attaching cognizance.

I think RInpoche is pointing to recognition because that recognition has to occur before familiarity and stability are achieved.

 

I usually experience very little thought when i practice and i can very easily rest for 30 min without much thought arising.Since i have almost no interaction with other practitioners i have no idea if this is something difficult to achieve .For me this is what it is like and in that sense i call this ordinary..There is the occasional doubt followed by thought which spins me around and throws me out from that presence.

However, here i am not saying that the state of no thought is equivalent with dharmata.Of course there is a bit more to it than just no thought.

 

This language, the one that Norbu Rinpoche employs there, is a language of experience, unlike that of ASTNS's , a language where he tell is it AS IT IS and how it is experienced by the one who finds himself in the presence of the condition of all phenomena.

 

And yes this is also the gap between thoughts, but it is dharmata only if one finds himself in it integrated with it rather than onridnarily looking at it, since just the mere looking at it sustains the relation between subject and object.Looking is the province of mind since mind can only know to work with qualities, with apprehending qualities where there are none.

As Mnajushrimitra points out:

 

"Since one is free from seizing on perceptible qualities, there does not exist anything that is better or worse.This supreme path is to be cultivated.

What is meant by perceptible quality"Since the coming about of a perceptible quality , whther it be of a directly sensed object or a mental process regarding a past object, produces an awareness and a latching onto that perceptible quality, there is the awareness of a perceptible quality that we term "perception".Cultivating what truly is , is spoken of as "free from perceptible qualities" because there is no latching onto such a perceptible quality ."

The mind is not engaged in seeking nor is it directed towards anything .One is free from knowing and not knowing.

One does not engage the mind in seeking to affirm or reject , nor does one direct the mind towards any objective support.Since even mind itself is not to be found and one doesn't make a distinction between knowing and not knowing is says "free from knowing and not knowing.

Remaining with the understanding of fundamental alikness , there is neither desire nor absence of desire ; through not making divisions there is also no fabrication of dualism.Since there is no latching onto thinking "this is such and such" one does not verbalize anything, therefore one is free from verbalization.There is no having to do something since there is no striving.There is also no inactivity, since one doesn't find any problems with actions through the three gates of body speech and mind

These explanations are perfectly in line with how CNNr explains dharmata.

[Anderson]

I'm not sure if your citation above is from The Cycle of Day and Night or from Collected Talks Vol. III, but either way you omitted the sections where he discusses mother dharmatā [chos nyid ma].

 

ChNN is very clear to separate ordinary mindfulness [dran pa] from rigpa.

 

How does that description compare to my dharmatā a.k.a. wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of? Well, if you didn't cherry pick a single quote regarding dharmatā from Norbu Rinpoche and actually sought to discover what he says about it in depth, you might find that my summation is not very different from his, here are a few more quotes from him:

 

I did only pick that quote because he explains dharmata and resting in dharmata from a very experiential point of view.After

that, he goes on , explaining a bit more intellectually about the mother dharmata , where he says that meeting with that presence is like the real meeting with the mother wisdom of dharmata, the condition of all phenomena, basically just giving names and labelling the experience of resting in dharmata, in the dimension of existence itself, Dharmakaya.

Also he explains the notion of mother wisdom and he makes some parallels with tantrism...

If you want to consult the talk is in Collected Talks vol 3 beginning with page 386

[GrandmasterP]

Tulku Urgyen ( who he?) hits the nail on the head....

"Whatever appears due to causes and conditions (me: including vidya and avidya)

is ultimately nothing but a moment of mere perception."

 

Call it whatever you choose and attach howsoever many labels or woo to it... Every experience is perceived north of our own neck.

The woo merchants wrap that simple fact up in variegated BS in order to secure a nice living for themselves and keep the business going.

The quacks on here and elsewhere selling their patented nostrums are 'in the lineage of' and none different to the old sectarian scallywags who pitched their 'exclusive' woo to pull in the punters.

Not to single out Dzogchen but merely using it as a contextual example...( from wiki on Dzogchen)....

"Tibetan Buddhist ascetics consider that the state pointed to by these teachings is very difficult to describe, and can only be discovered through the esoteric transmission and pointing-out instruction by an authentic Vajra Master."

 

So the 'authentic Vajra master' has a nice secure living cos he holds the franchise and is the 'go to guy'.

Mr Urgyen gives the lie to that nonsense in his pellucid statement quoted at the top of this post.

It's all in the mind.

Cultivation hones body and mind.

All else is labelling and dogma.

The dharma is not something to believe in but something to do.

Ultimately 'we' cultivate, no school nor 'master' can do it for us.

Edited May 8, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[doc benway]

First one must become aware of the quality of being in which one is not dragged around and buffeted by thought.

Then one must become familiar with and stable in that state.

Not a trivial matter, IME.

 

I usually experience very little thought when i practice and i can very easily rest for 30 min without much thought arising.Since i have almost no interaction with other practitioners i have no idea if this is something difficult to achieve .For me this is what it is like and in that sense i call this ordinary..

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I wasn't referring to resting in a state with little or no thought.

Rather, I was referring to a state in which the thought arises, dwells, and liberates without distraction, without taking us out of the nature, without causing any attachment or aversion, simply as an ornament.

Quite a different proposition, IME.

Perhaps that is also what you are describing and we are speaking of the same thing, perhaps not.

[Anderson]

 

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I wasn't referring to resting in a state with little or no thought.

Rather, I was referring to a state in which the thought arises, dwells, and liberates without distraction, without taking us out of the nature, without causing any attachment or aversion, simply as an ornament.

Quite a different proposition, IME.

Perhaps that is also what you are describing and we are speaking of the same thing, perhaps not.

 

So how is this of what you describe different say from being mindfull of thoughts, feelings arising since mindfulness is just that , being present with whatever arises and letting everything be without ever losing oneself or being absorbed in that appearance.

 

[C T]

Can you comment further? These two excerpts from your post seem at odds with each other.

Tulku Urgyen (in the upper quote) states clearly the inseparable unity of outer phenomena and our inner nature. All that appears as form, the great elements, are fundamentally made up of space -- including that (the senses) which perceive these forms. Due to conceptual overlays distorting what is filtered thru the senses, non-recognition of the essential unity occurs, setting into motion dualistic mind (sems), which gives birth to the 12 links. Subsequent effects of such tendencies become self-created obstacles, which is also empty, but habitual grasping gets in the way of recognising the actuality of this.

 

The second quote, which is mine, states that sems is simply a made-up word to describe the presence of dualistic tendencies, that in actual fact, sems does not have any inherent existence, and should not be seen as something which needs to be eradicated. If it is to be regarded as something innate which needs eradication, that mistaken view in itself creates the seed for further proliferation of dualistic tendencies.

 

Recognizing the unity of ying and rigpa, is foremost as this will stave off any unnecessary doubts regarding the illusory nature of both wisdom and ignorance.

 

Asunthatneversets asserts that in the absence of ignorance, wisdom remains. This is the bodhisattva stance. Hence the return to fulfil the vows of liberating all beings who are seen to be in need of 'salvation'. He has every right to see it that way. Many practitioners also have such noble inclinations shape their practice. However, I'm asserting that even wisdom is a form of subtle clinging, and that the term Great Nirvana (Pari-nirvana), or final release, applies to going beyond both wisdom and ignorance, a complete cessation of even the subtlest tendencies which give rise to dualistic grasping.

Edited May 8, 2014 by C T

[forestofclarity]

I don't understand much of Dzogchen conversation because it relies on terms that are too esoteric and far removed from my direct experience. However, Steve, what you describe here is very much in line with my own experience in Soto Zen. For me, zazen is a balance. In zazen, there is clarity and openess as one simply sits with the world as it is.

 

 

It may sound "absolutely ordinary," and, in one sense it is, but that is quite deceiving.

First one must become aware of the quality of being in which one is not dragged around and buffeted by thought.

Then one must become familiar with and stable in that state.

Not a trivial matter, IME.

The following of thought and the sensory consciousnesses and the generation of judgements are near instantaneous and vary from gross to incredibly subtle.

I don't find this to be something easily achieved for substantial periods of time.

Nor do I think most practitioners are terribly stable in this state of non-attaching cognizance.

I think RInpoche is pointing to recognition because that recognition has to occur before familiarity and stability are achieved.

[doc benway]

So how is this of what you describe different say from being mindfull of thoughts, feelings arising since mindfulness is just that , being present with whatever arises and letting everything be without ever losing oneself or being absorbed in that appearance.

 

When resting in the Nature, who is there to be mindful or lost in appearance?

 

 

 

Asunthatneversets asserts that in the absence of ignorance, wisdom remains.

 

I agree with this view (by definition perhaps).

 

 

This is the bodhisattva stance. Hence the return to fulfil the vows of liberating all beings who are seen to be in need of 'salvation'. He has every right to see it that way. Many practitioners also have such noble inclinations shape their practice. However, I'm asserting that even wisdom is a form of subtle clinging, and that the term Great Nirvana (Pari-nirvana), or final release, applies to going beyond both wisdom and ignorance, a complete cessation of even the subtlest tendencies which give rise to dualistic grasping.

 

Thanks for that clarification. I think I understand the point you are trying to make regarding subtle grasping but then how are you defining wisdom? Even the most subtle grasping at wisdom is not wisdom...

The way I look at it, if even the most subtle grasping remains, ignorance remains and true wisdom has not yet dawned.

 

 

I don't understand much of Dzogchen conversation because it relies on terms that are too esoteric and far removed from my direct experience. However, Steve, what you describe here is very much in line with my own experience in Soto Zen. For me, zazen is a balance. In zazen, there is clarity and openess as one simply sits with the world as it is.

 

Ironic, isn't it, that Dzogchen terminology can be so confusing and Dzogchen can be the source of so much debate when the fundamental principle is to simply let everything be as it is? It is already naturally perfected and nothing can be added or subtracted.

 

I have no experience with Zen practice although your practice sounds and feels familiar. I'm quite sure that there are experts and scholars who could point out the (perceived) differences but I'm not too concerned with that. I think I learn as much or more looking for similarities than I do emphasizing differences. I also acknowledge the value of scholarship and healthy debate, although I'm more a practitioner than a scholar. I was always that way in my martial arts training and it has carried over into my meditative life and practice.

[doc benway]

Tulku Urgyen ( who he?) hits the nail on the head....

"Whatever appears due to causes and conditions (me: including vidya and avidya)

is ultimately nothing but a moment of mere perception."

 

Call it whatever you choose and attach howsoever many labels or woo to it... Every experience is perceived north of our own neck.

 

Have you ever seen a live head without a neck?

 

 

 

The woo merchants wrap that simple fact up in variegated BS in order to secure a nice living for themselves and keep the business going.

The quacks on here and elsewhere selling their patented nostrums are 'in the lineage of' and none different to the old sectarian scallywags who pitched their 'exclusive' woo to pull in the punters.

Not to single out Dzogchen but merely using it as a contextual example...( from wiki on Dzogchen)....

"Tibetan Buddhist ascetics consider that the state pointed to by these teachings is very difficult to describe, and can only be discovered through the esoteric transmission and pointing-out instruction by an authentic Vajra Master."

 

So the 'authentic Vajra master' has a nice secure living cos he holds the franchise and is the 'go to guy'.

Mr Urgyen gives the lie to that nonsense in his pellucid statement quoted at the top of this post.

It's all in the mind.

 

And what is that exactly, and where does it reside?

 

 

 

Cultivation hones body and mind.

All else is labelling and dogma.

The dharma is not something to believe in but something to do.

Ultimately 'we' cultivate, no school nor 'master' can do it for us.

 

Very good advice and it is equally important to cultivate skillfully, otherwise we are cultivating bad habits.

Most of us need some degree of learning and guidance.

[asunthatneversets]

Recognizing the unity of ying and rigpa, is foremost as this will stave off any unnecessary doubts regarding the illusory nature of both wisdom and ignorance.

 

Asunthatneversets asserts that in the absence of ignorance, wisdom remains. This is the bodhisattva stance. Hence the return to fulfil the vows of liberating all beings who are seen to be in need of 'salvation'. He has every right to see it that way. Many practitioners also have such noble inclinations shape their practice. However, I'm asserting that even wisdom is a form of subtle clinging, and that the term Great Nirvana (Pari-nirvana), or final release, applies to going beyond both wisdom and ignorance, a complete cessation of even the subtlest tendencies which give rise to dualistic grasping.

 

What do you think wisdom is? I ask because your statements do not make sense, you seem to be advocating for the nullification of ignorance and wisdom (due to the fact that they are illusory - which everything is, but that does not make them arbitrary), yet at the same time you advocate for rigpa, which is a direct knowledge of the wisdom you seem to be rejecting. It is very strange, and leads me to conclude that you don't really understand what wisdom implies.

 

I'm also not sure what the bodhisattva ideal has to do with this in any way (apart from of course being a vital aspect of the path). This is another assertion which does not make sense at all, and is out of left field to be honest. When you are ignorant of something, you lack knowledge of it, when you have knowledge of something, you are no longer ignorant of it. It is a very simple principle. Why you are having difficulty with it I'm not sure.

 

By asserting that wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] (i.e. the basis [skt. sthāna, tib. gzhi] i.e. the three wisdoms [ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje] i.e. the three kāyas) is a form of subtle clinging, you have successfully misunderstood Dzogpa Chenpo altogether.

 

Parinirvana can have a few meanings, one being the death of a realized being (the dissolution of their elements). However in the sense you are attempting to discuss parinirvana; it simply means one has reached the highest wisdom [uttarajñāna], which comes after the exhaustion of dharmatā, something you no doubt lack knowledge of, for that is rainbow body. Ergo, why you are choosing to preemptively talk of "going beyond" wisdom is ridiculous, to say the least.

[asunthatneversets]

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu on aiming at the space between thoughts:

 

"Also, some teachers explain we have the experience of emptiness [gnas pa] between one thought and the next thought. Particularly if you are practicing shine [zhi gnas] and becoming familiar with it, you can remain for a long time without thought. Then a thought arises. In general there is always and empty space between thoughts. That is the same as the experience of emptiness [gnas pa], that condition is emptiness [stillness, non-thought], and many people say 'The space between thoughts represents dharmakāya. That's why you do shine. You make that space larger and larger; if you make that dimension without thoughts larger then you are in dharmakāya and you can attain realization'. That is a wrong teaching, it really means dancing on the books of teachings without having any experience of real practice.

 

That is not instant presence [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa]. If you are not in instant presence there is no possibility of realization. If you make that kind of emptiness larger and larger, maybe after your death it will make the cause for obtaining the dimension of samsara called no form [formless realm], a part of the deva realm. This is a higher state of the devas, they live for thousands of years without having any form. That's the fruit of that kind of practice, but when it finishes they go to hell, because all their merits are consumed. So that is samsara, not realization. You must not go in that direction."

 

Side note: what Norbu Rinpoche refers to as "emptiness" is non-thought, or stillness of mind (as opposed to the movement of thought). So in general, when you read "emptiness" from Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, he is referencing the relative stillness of mind, rather than emptiness [skt. śūnyatā, tib. stong pa nyid], (dharmakāya) as it is usually used in buddhist texts.

[C T]

What do you think wisdom is? I ask because your statements do not make sense, you seem to be advocating for the nullification of ignorance and wisdom (due to the fact that they are illusory - which everything is, but that does not make them arbitrary), yet at the same time you advocate for rigpa, which is a direct knowledge of the wisdom you seem to be rejecting. It is very strange, and leads me to conclude that you don't really understand what wisdom implies.

 

I'm also not sure what the bodhisattva ideal has to do with this in any way (apart from of course being a vital aspect of the path). This is another assertion which does not make sense at all, and is out of left field to be honest. When you are ignorant of something, you lack knowledge of it, when you have knowledge of something, you are no longer ignorant of it. It is a very simple principle. Why you are having difficulty with it I'm not sure.

 

By asserting that wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] (i.e. the basis [skt. sthāna, tib. gzhi] i.e. the three wisdoms [ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje] i.e. the three kāyas) is a form of subtle clinging, you have successfully misunderstood Dzogpa Chenpo altogether.

 

Parinirvana can have a few meanings, one being the death of a realized being (the dissolution of their elements). However in the sense you are attempting to discuss parinirvana; it simply means one has reached the highest wisdom [uttarajñāna], which comes after the exhaustion of dharmatā, something you no doubt lack knowledge of, for that is rainbow body. Ergo, why you are choosing to preemptively talk of "going beyond" wisdom is ridiculous, to say the least.

Parinirvana means non-returning to the rounds of rebirth, absolute cessation. Not sure where you get the idea that it means one has reached the highest wisdom. Who is this 'one who reaches highest wisdom?' Buddha said there is no 'one' to reach anything. Any thoughts that there is 'one' or 'many' is still indicative of being bound by chains. There is no such thing as a 'one', hence, no such thing as 'highest wisdom'. Because there is no such thing as 'highest wisdom', there, in the midst of empty cognizance, it arises from within the minds of men as conventional truths, put in place as guardrails for fledgling practitioners to hang on to in case they stumble out into the vast expanse and get lost.

 

Dzogpa chenpo is great perfection. Wisdom is useless after complete confidence in the View is attained. Prior to that, its very much an essential part of developing one's stability in recognizing and maintaining the View. Post-recognition, where all is seen to be already perfected since beginningless time, those who still assert the vital role of wisdom, or conversely, are still able to differentiate between vidya and avidya, are merely cajoling themselves along with a different set of delusional tools due to subtle dualistic clinging. Its also a means to sustain one's self-importance, especially in those who place a lot of emphasis on correct cognition of the natural state. Equipoise is the exact opposite of such fixated views.

 

Great masters of the past said that with wisdom from hearing, one recognizes disturbing emotions. Through the wisdom that comes from reflection, one gradually learns to overcome these disturbing emotions temporarily. Finally, thru the wisdom that comes from meditation, such disturbing emotions are completely extinguished. When disturbing emotions are fully eradicated without even the slightest lingering doubts, they call this the dawning of the 'inexpressible dharmakaya'. It is not something which arises in a self... its a selfless display, i.e. there is no 'one' there to witness the process. The process takes on an energy of its own, and scrapes away at the layers until such time, whats left is simply that: The 'inexpressible dharmakaya', that which is already perfected and can not be improved upon any further. This great recognition wells up and swallows everything. It is not something which arise from the effort of cultivating wisdom and/or eradicating ignorance.

 

Its understandable why you seem ruffled by such a radical view, thereby seeking to attack my points, calling them ridiculous, etc.

Edited May 8, 2014 by C T

[Tibetan_Ice]

It's a battle of words.

 

 

Us and Them

And after all we're only ordinary men

Me, and you

God only knows it's not what we would choose to do

Forward he cried from the rear

and the front rank died

And the General sat, as the lines on the map

moved from side to side

Black and Blue

And who knows which is which and who is who

Up and Down

And in the end it's only round and round and round

Haven't you heard it's a battle of words

the poster bearer cried

Listen son, said the man with the gun

There's room for you inside

Down and Out

It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about

With, without

And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about

Get out of the way, it's a busy day

And I've got things on my mind

For want of the price of tea and a slice

The old man died

Edited May 8, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

Yes, do not cultivate the space between thoughts. Actually, there is no space between thoughts, there are only thousands of other thoughts down deeper that you just aren't seeing.

 

When you leave thoughts alone, they rise and then dissolve. A good way to start the process is by creating a thought yourself and then focus on the clarity of the thought, or the location of the thought. You look directly at the thought without getting sucked into the content of the thought. The thought dissolves on its own. Then you stay there, at that location, at that fixation and watch other thoughts come, display and dissolve. Gradually, more and more thoughts appear and dissolve. It goes faster. Smaller, finer thoughts appear. Hundreds of them..

 

After 10 or so minutes of doing that, the visions start to appear, more towards the brow area in the head. You do the same thing for those visions. The visions dissolve into rainbow lights, or small multicolored streams of particles.. You keep dissolving the visions. More and more visions appear and at first, they too move so fast that it makes your head spin. But after many days of practice, they slow down. Then, some of the visions look so real and crisp that it is hard to distinguish them between normal reality. Slowly, you start to understand that reality is just like all of those visions. Then, one day, your reality comes apart and you realize that there are just perceptions of 3D appearances with a bunch of white light in between..

 

Oh and as thoughts and visions dissolve, it produces heat and ecstasy.

 

And turning the attention away from the thought and back towards the watcher, as Jax suggests in his book and in his retreat video is NOT dissolving thoughts. It is only running away.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[asunthatneversets]

Parinirvana means non-returning to the rounds of rebirth, absolute cessation. Not sure where you get the idea that it means one has reached the highest wisdom.

 

Not returning to the rounds of rebirth would be total liberation i.e. the highest wisdom.

 

Who is this 'one who reaches highest wisdom?'

 

You as the conventional self. It goes without saying that all conventions are merely inferential and do not point to anything inherently real. Hence we can say that John Doe or Mary Smith attains liberation, or the highest wisdom, or recognizes their nature etc., and understand that such a statement does not suggest that anyone is truly doing such things.

 

Buddha said there is no 'one' to reach anything.

 

Right, ultimately the individual is empty. Conventionally, the individual does many things. Buddha, in this instance was pointing towards the ultimate truth, but in the absolute sense, grasping at ultimate truth and negating conventional processes (especially the basis, path and result) is called nihilism. Something to be avoided.

 

Any thoughts that there is 'one' or 'many' is still indicative of being bound by chains.

 

The thoughts are not the issue, but how those thoughts are related to. Just as an afflictive relationship with concepts such as 'one' or 'many' can undoubtably be counterproductive, grasping at the non-existence of such notions is equally binding. Better to simply understand that all conventional designations are inferential and lack inherent existence, because then there is freedom to implement language freely without erring into nihilism.

 

There is no such thing as a 'one', hence, no such thing as 'highest wisdom'.

 

Ultimately there is 'no such thing' as anything, yet processes unfold and appearances manifest. This goes without saying, yet if this principle is grasped at then the ultimate is identified with by mind, which causes a negation of the system, specifically; the basis, path and result. This is called allowing the view to overtake the conduct, which is an error that the system warns against. On the flip side there is such a thing as allowing the conduct to overtake the view, so there must be a balance, and right view is the corner stone of that balance.

 

Because there is no such thing as 'highest wisdom', there, in the midst of empty cognizance, it arises from within the minds of men as conventional truths, put in place as guardrails for fledgling practitioners to hang on to in case they stumble out into the vast expanse and get lost.

 

Every designation is conventional, even the idea that there is no such thing as X. Clinging to a notion of that nature is simply grasping at an opposite dualistic extreme. The buddhadharma is very skillful in its ability to traverse such contradictions by implementing conventional and ultimate principles. Even though Dzogchen does not give credence to the two truths, it still undoubtably implements conventions, and so the same principle applies. In actuality, even Madhyamaka does not give credence to the two truths, but agrees with Dzogchen that there is only one truth, which is awakened wisdom. So there is no need to reject conventions, especially when you would have to use conventions to make the rejection.

 

Dzogpa chenpo is great perfection. Wisdom is useless after complete confidence in the View is attained.

 

Again, here you are giving credence to wisdom, while simultaneously attempting to marginalize it. The view is that of primordial wisdom, or more specifically, one's knowledge of primordial wisdom, that is itself the great perfection.

 

Prior to that, its very much an essential part of developing one's stability in recognizing and maintaining the View. Post-recognition, where all is seen to be already perfected since beginningless time, those who still assert the vital role of wisdom, or conversely, are still able to differentiate between vidya and avidya, are merely cajoling themselves along with a different set of delusional tools due to subtle dualistic clinging.

 

Well this is not what the system says. Nowhere will you find rhetoric which states in the wake of recognition the principles of ignorance, wisdom, vidyā and avidyā are suddenly extraneous and dispensable.

 

In fact, you are again attempting to marginalize wisdom, while simultaneously giving credence to it. You even go as far as to offer the very definition of wisdom ("where all is seen to be already perfected since beginningless time") which is given in the rig pa rang shar, while then denigrating it in the next sentence.

 

Dualistic clinging is not possible from the standpoint of vidyā, so your assertion that the vidyā-avidyā dichotomy is a frivolous byproduct of clinging is an inaccurate statement. Vidyā is the definitive view, which serves as the path and result, it is directly resting in uncontrived wisdom i.e. the natural state. From the perspective of vidyā there is no differentiation between itself and avidyā, however since recognition of one's nature only dispels avidyā, and does not resolve the proliferation of karmic propensities, the view must be maintained unerringly, otherwise there is indeed danger of regressing back into avidyā. As elucidated by Jigme Lingpa here:

 

"However if he has not perfected his skill in the wisdom that shines out in vipaśyanā [meaning the definitive view of the natural state], then, being enveloped in the ālaya as before, that lamp of luminosity will be extinguished and no longer present."

 

Will respond to the rest soon.

[asunthatneversets]

It's a battle of words.

 

Welcome to the internet.