[Jeff]

I was probably wrong in saying that tregcho is the path because according to Malcolm:

 

"Tregchö is not the path in Dzogchen.

It is the ground for practicing the path. The path in Dzogchen is thögal. Hence, the way the basis is explained in Dzogchen reflects the actual path in Dzogchen, thus the explanation of the basis in Dzogchen is completely different than that of Mahāmudra. "

 

Would not Malcolm's statement imply that Tregcho is sort of a "prerequisite", so that it may provide the soil for which thogal may grow?

[Anderson]

Would not Malcolm's statement imply that Tregcho is sort of a "prerequisite", so that it may provide the soil for which thogal may grow?

 

Yes, something like that.

I think that the idea is that budhahood doesn't arise from treckchod alone.

One needs to work with lhundrup also which is the speciality of thogal only.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Anderson

[Jeff]

Yes, something like that.

I think that the idea is that budhahood doesn't arise from treckchod alone.

One needs to work with lhundrup also which is the speciality of thogal only.

 

I would agree. Treckchod leads one to the realization of the nature of mind (or clarity of mind) and sort of the "base". Thogal is sort of the integration and "breaking down" of universal mind into it's raw components. What remains is what is commonly called a "buddha".

[asunthatneversets]

I was probably wrong in saying that tregcho is the path because according to Malcolm:

 

"Tregchö is not the path in Dzogchen.

It is the ground for practicing the path. The path in Dzogchen is thögal. Hence, the way the basis is explained in Dzogchen reflects the actual path in Dzogchen, thus the explanation of the basis in Dzogchen is completely different than that of Mahāmudra. "

 

Yeah he has stated elsewhere in passing that tregchö is the basis, thögal is the path, and the result is one of the few forms of death, be it rainbow body, atomic body, etc.

 

Also that 'tregchö' [khregs chod] is essentially any means which is implemented to cut through delusion and/or fixation towards delusion, and in that way, tregchö begins to naturally imply the other integrative practices found in man ngag sde and klong sde. Each of those practices in relation to one another is a combination naturally akin to two sides of the same coin. Dzogchen practices are tregchö by definition though, for example; people have asked Chögyal Namkhai Norbu why he doesn't regularly teach tregchö, and in response he laughed and said he's always teaching tregchö.

 

At the same time though, Malcolm has also stated that the result of tregchö is the realization of ka dag, which is emptiness free from extremes as unobscured buddha mind [dharmakāya]... while through the other man ngag sde practices (that incorporate energy) is it possible to realize ka dag chen po [nondual ka dag and lhun grub] which reveals the unobscured three kāyas in their entirety.

[asunthatneversets]

Yes, something like that.

I think that the idea is that budhahood doesn't arise from treckchod alone.

One needs to work with lhundrup also which is the speciality of thogal only.

 

Buddhahood does occur via tregchö alone, it just takes a lot longer to achieve and doesn't incorporate lhun grub like the other energy based practices do.

 

Yang ti nag po and klong sde practices also work with lhun grub.

[Creation]

 

Thusness also has some succinct insight on this:

 

"Depending on the conditions of an individual, it may not be obvious that it is 'always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought.' or 'the watcher is that thought.' Because this is the key insight and a step that cannot afford to be wrong along the path of liberation, I cannot help but with some disrespectful tone say,

 

For those masters that taught,

'Let thoughts arise and subside,

See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.'

With all due respect, they have just 'blah' something nice but deluded.

 

How do you rectify this with the fact that Namkhai Norbu's favored illustration of the nature of mind is the mirror?

Edited February 20, 2014 by Creation

[asunthatneversets]

 

How do you rectify this with the fact that Namkhai Norbu's favored illustration of the nature of mind is the mirror?

Something I wrote awhile ago, and some quotes from Chögyal Namkhai Norbu:

 

The mirror-analogy is commonly used in attempting to describe the 'nature of mind' and there is a common misconception which tends to arise from this analogy because the implementation of a mirror seems to convey a substantiated background (or unchanging source). I was attempting to point out that the analogy isn't meant to explore the mirror in itself as an unchanging basis, but solely the mirror's capacity to reflect. So the capacity is the aspect the analogy is exploring. Equating the nature of mind to the mirror's reflective capacity (but not the mirror itself). That the reflections are inseparable from that capacity, just like AEN elucidated with the fire-to-heat and water-to-wetness examples. That capacity isn't a conceivable quality, it isn't something which can be 'known' as a substantiated suchness. The capacity (to reflect) cannot be rolled, thrown or bounced, it has no shape, color, location, weight or height. There is nothing there one can point to and declare 'there it is!'. Yet in it's elusiveness it is still fully apparent in the presence of the reflections themselves. The capacity is evident because of the reflections and the reflections are evident because of the capacity, in truth they co-emergent and mutually interdependent qualities which are completely inseparable. Evident, clear and pure, yet unestablished, ungraspable and ephemeral.

 

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche used the capacity aspect as well;

 

"Our primordial potentiality is beyond form, but we have a symbol, and when we have a symbol then we can get in that knowledge. It is very easy to understand with an example. If you want to discover the potentiality of a mirror, how can you go about it? You can neither see or touch the nature or potentiality of a mirror, nor can you have contact with it in any ordinary way, the only way is to look in a mirror, and then the reflections will appear and through the reflections you can discover it. The reflections are not really the potentiality of the mirror but they are manifesting through that potentiality, so they are something visible for us. With this example we can get in the knowledge of the potentiality of the mirror...."

- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

 

"Why then do we have this symbol of primordial potentiality? Primordial potentiality in the Dzogchen teaching is explained with three principles: sound, light and rays. This does not mean that sound, light and rays are manifestations, but rather that these are the root of all manifestations. When you have this potentiality then there is always the possibility of manifestations. If we wonder, for example what the potentiality of a mirror looks like, we couldn't say very much, we could say for example that it is clear, pure, limpid and so forth, but we could not really have contact with it directly through our senses. In the same way sound, light and rays are the essence of potentiality. When we have this potentiality, if secondary causes arise, then anything can manifest.

What do we mean by secondary causes? For example, if in front of a mirror there is tree, or a flower or a person, the object instantly manifests. These are secondary causes. So if there is no secondary cause there is no manifestation. Thus in front of our primordial potentiality there are all the possibilities of manifestation of the secondary causes....."

- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

[doc benway]

From my limited experience and current practice, tregchod is a tool used to bring us to the natural state and helps us to return and eventually stabilize there, whereas thogal develops the insight to recognize and dwell in the knowing that all "vision" and experience (sound, light, and rays) are simply an ornament of the base - one taste.

 

The important aspect of the mirror analogy for me is the fact that the mirror itself has no preference, makes no judgement. The mirror does not color, influence, or affect, nor is it affected by, the reflections that manifest within it. The danger of the analogy is that we tend to look at the mirror as 'something' and that which is reflected in the mirror as 'something else.' This is a wrong view. In fact, the mirror and that which is reflected in the mirror, and the reflection itself are all of one taste - clear light, emptiness and clarity, mother and son.

[asunthatneversets]

From my limited experience and current practice, tregchod is a tool used to bring us to the natural state and helps us to return and eventually stabilize there, whereas thogal develops the insight to recognize and dwell in the knowing that all "vision" and experience (sound, light, and rays) are simply an ornament of the base - one taste.

 

The important aspect of the mirror analogy for me is the fact that the mirror itself has no preference, makes no judgement. The mirror does not color, influence, or affect, nor is it affected by, the reflections that manifest within it. The danger of the analogy is that we tend to look at the mirror as 'something' and that which is reflected in the mirror as 'something else.' This is a wrong view. In fact, the mirror and that which is reflected in the mirror, and the reflection itself are all of one taste - clear light, emptiness and clarity, mother and son.

 

In my opinion the 'mirror' itself is an aspect of the analogy that can be dispensed with altogether (or just ignored). Much like in the analogy of the moon reflected in water, the water itself isn't an important aspect of the analogy, the important part is seeing that the moon appears, yet it is not a moon, it is simply an image, apparent yet unreal. Same goes for appearances in a mirror, they are apparent yet unreal. Inseparable from the capacity to reflect, yet that capacity isn't anything. Just like they say in Dzogchen; the nature of mind does not exist, and is nothing at all in itself, yet it cognizes everything.

 

I just feel once the 'mirror itself' is introduced into the equation it too easily lends to an idea of 'something' substantial, much harder to go down that road if it is simply the mirror's capacity or potentiality that is used, and I think Norbu Rinpoche took note of that as well, being that he distinctly referenced the potentiality rather than the mirror itself.

 

But to each their own! The ability for interpretation and so on is the beauty of analogies, metaphors and so on.

[doc benway]

In my opinion the 'mirror' itself is an aspect of the analogy that can be dispensed with altogether (or just ignored). Much like in the analogy of the moon reflected in water, the water itself isn't an important aspect of the analogy, the important part is seeing that the moon appears, yet it is not a moon, it is simply an image, apparent yet unreal. Same goes for appearances in a mirror, they are apparent yet unreal. Inseparable from the capacity to reflect, yet that capacity isn't anything.

 

I find value in the "presence" of the mirror in the analogy. The mirror is not stained by the reflection, the mirror reflects all images equally without preference or aversion. The mirror is unchanged and unchanging while the reflections manifesting in it are as you describe. Another wonderful and related analogy is that of writing in water. Attempting to write in water is like the arising of thoughts and visions in the mind of the accomplished Dzogchenpa. While resting in the Nature of Mind thoughts have no where to rest, no where to take hold, as they form they nature liberate… like trying to write words in water.

 

Just like they say in Dzogchen; the nature of mind does not exist, and is nothing at all in itself, yet it cognizes everything.

 

"the nature of mind does not exist." Do they say that in Dzogchen? That sounds a bit too nihilistic for my taste. Yes, it is empty of inherent existence but it cannot be said to "not exist" either. That is made clear over and over again by the masters. It is equally nothing and everything, yet neither of those…

 

 

I just feel once the 'mirror itself' is introduced into the equation it too easily lends to an idea of 'something' substantial, much harder to go down that road if it is simply the mirror's capacity or potentiality that is used, and I think Norbu Rinpoche took note of that as well, being that he distinctly referenced the potentiality rather than the mirror itself.

 

But to each their own! The ability for interpretation and so on is the beauty of analogies, metaphors and so on.

 

Yes, there is a danger of taking the presence of the mirror too literally but we are already living in samsara and fully pervaded by duality so I don't think it's a big deal to use samsaric analogies and point out the correct way to approach them. After all, every analogy is rooted in duality. Even the "mirror's capacity or potentiality" is rooted in duality. Removing the mirror is artificial and may, in fact, make it easier for folks to overlook the duality due to the subtlety of it's presence.

[asunthatneversets]

I find value in the "presence" of the mirror in the analogy. The mirror is not stained by the reflection, the mirror reflects all images equally without preference or aversion. The mirror is unchanged and unchanging while the reflections manifesting in it are as you describe. Another wonderful and related analogy is that of writing in water. Attempting to write in water is like the arising of thoughts and visions in the mind of the accomplished Dzogchenpa. While resting in the Nature of Mind thoughts have no where to rest, no where to take hold, as they form they nature liberate… like trying to write words in water.

 

 

"the nature of mind does not exist." Do they say that in Dzogchen? That sounds a bit too nihilistic for my taste. Yes, it is empty of inherent existence but it cannot be said to "not exist" either. That is made clear over and over again by the masters. It is equally nothing and everything, yet neither of those…

 

 

 

Yes, there is a danger of taking the presence of the mirror too literally but we are already living in samsara and fully pervaded by duality so I don't think it's a big deal to use samsaric analogies and point out the correct way to approach them. After all, every analogy is rooted in duality. Even the "mirror's capacity or potentiality" is rooted in duality. Removing the mirror is artificial and may, in fact, make it easier for folks to overlook the duality due to the subtlety of it's presence.

 

Yes but the 'mirror' suggests a 'something' which is not stained by reflections, 'something' which is unchanged or is itself unchanging. Dharmatā is not a 'something' which is a thing in itself that is unstained, dharmatā is simply the non-arising nature of appearances themselves, their lack of inherency, their emptiness. So yes, the dharmatā [nature] of dharmins [phenomena] is never stained, it does not waver or change (because it never arose in the first place) and so on, but that dharmatā is inseparable from the so-called thing itself. It is the absence of inherency, or the unfindability of whatever phenomena is in question.

 

The 'writing on water' part is describing a different aspect of recognizing that non-arising nature. Recognition of the nature of mind [cittatā] voids the subjective knowing reference point and results in experience being 'self-luminous' and 'self-knowing', Dzogchen terms this self arising [tib. rang byung] and self liberation [tib. rang grol]. Self-liberation [rang grol] occurs because in the absence of a mind that grasps, empty dharmas, being non-arisen are unmediated and so there is no clinging. It also points to the fact that dharmas are liberated of an essence, core or being i.e. self. So recognition of the nature of mind frees up the illusory reference point of mind and therefore mind no longer mediates experience and appearances self-arise [rang byung] and self-liberate [rang grol]. The 'writing on water' attempts to convey this lack of mediation in relation to empty appearances, for without foundation, root, or an observing reference point which abides in relation to them, they simply liberate upon arising. The flight of a bird through the sky which leaves no trace is another way this is framed, but in either case, the water or the sky are not aspects of the metaphor which are pertinent. The metaphor is simply attempting to describe the manner in which unmediated and non-arising occurrence manifests itself.

 

Dzogchen does sometimes parse one's nature as 'non-existent', but will do it while suggesting an avenue of expression or appearance at the same time. So for instance the example you questioned says that one's nature is non-existent, yet it cognizes everything. So it isn't an utter absence.

 

Vajrayogini uses this same description:

"The earth outside, the stones, mountains, rocks, plants, trees and forests do not truly exist. The body inside does not truly exist. This empty and luminous mind-nature also does not truly exist. Although it does not truly exist, it cognizes everything."

 

Garab Dorje says something to the same effect:

"This vidyā is devoid of true existence.

Its natural expression arises as everything without obstruction."

 

Longchenpa comments on the metaphor of 'space' in relation to our nature:

"Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself [skt. cittatā, tib. sems nyid], pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest."

 

You are right however that one's nature is usually presented as being free from extremes (the quotes above are intended to suggest that as well). And that is the safest way to describe it, otherwise the lack of inherent existence can be misinterpreted as a nihilistic statement. It isn't that one's nature is equally nothing yet at the same time everything, yet neither of those. The freedom from the four extremes is a way to convey that our nature is non-arisen and empty from the very beginning. Meaning, it therefore is nothing which can accord with any of the four extremes: (i) existence, (ii) non-existence, (iii) both, (iv) neither. It cannot truly be non-existent, because it is nothing which has ever existed in the first place.

Edited February 22, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[doc benway]

Yes but the 'mirror' suggests a 'something' which is not stained by reflections, 'something' which is unchanged or is itself unchanging. Dharmatā is not a 'something' which is a thing in itself that is unstained, dharmatā is simply the non-arising nature of appearances themselves, their lack of inherency, their emptiness. So yes, the dharmatā [nature] of dharmins [phenomena] is never stained, it does not waver or change (because it never arose in the first place) and so on, but that dharmatā is inseparable from the so-called thing itself. It is the absence of inherency, or the unfindability of whatever phenomena is in question. The 'writing on water' part is describing a different aspect of recognizing that non-arising nature. Recognition of the nature of mind [cittatā] voids the subjective knowing reference point and results in experience being 'self-luminous' and 'self-knowing', Dzogchen terms this self arising [tib. rang byung] and self liberation [tib. rang grol]. Self-liberation [rang grol] occurs because in the absence of a mind that grasps, empty dharmas, being non-arisen are unmediated and so there is no clinging. It also points to the fact that dharmas are liberated of an essence, core or being i.e. self. So recognition of the nature of mind frees up the illusory reference point of mind and therefore mind no longer mediates experience and appearances self-arise [rang byung] and self-liberate [rang grol]. The 'writing on water' attempts to convey this lack of mediation in relation to empty appearances, for without foundation, root, or an observing reference point which abides in relation to them, they simply liberate upon arising. The flight of a bird through the sky which leaves no trace is another way this is framed, but in either case, the water or the sky are not aspects of the metaphor which are pertinent. The metaphor is simply attempting to describe the manner in which unmediated and non-arising occurrence manifests itself. Dzogchen does sometimes parse one's nature as 'non-existent', but will do it while suggesting an avenue of expression or appearance at the same time. So for instance the example you questioned says that one's nature is non-existent, yet it cognizes everything. So it isn't an utter absence. Vajrayogini uses this same description:"The earth outside, the stones, mountains, rocks, plants, trees and forests do not truly exist. The body inside does not truly exist. This empty and luminous mind-nature also does not truly exist. Although it does not truly exist, it cognizes everything." Garab Dorje says something to the same effect:"This vidyā is devoid of true existence.Its natural expression arises as everything without obstruction."Longchenpa comments on the metaphor of 'space' in relation to our nature:"Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself [skt. cittatā, tib. sems nyid], pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest." You are right however that one's nature is usually presented as being free from extremes (the quotes above are intended to suggest that as well). And that is the safest way to describe it, otherwise the lack of inherent existence can be misinterpreted as a nihilistic statement. It isn't that one's nature is equally nothing yet at the same time everything, yet neither of those. The freedom from the four extremes is a way to convey that our nature is non-arisen and empty from the very beginning. Meaning, it therefore is nothing which can accord with any of the four extremes: (i) existence, (ii) non-existence, (iii) both, (iv) neither. It cannot truly be non-existent, because it is nothing which has ever existed in the first place.

 

Nice post (as are all the posts of yours that I've read so far...).

In Vajrayogini's quote "The earth outside, the stones, mountains, rocks, plants, trees and forests do not truly exist. The body inside does not truly exist. This empty and luminous mind-nature also does not truly exist. Although it does not truly exist, it cognizes everything.", if all does not "truly exist," what "everything" is there to be cognized?

Our use of language to discuss these concepts is inherently inadequate and necessarily leads to confusion.

I like Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche's comments from "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" (and everything else he has written, but I'm admittedly biased) in referring to the base (khunzi) -

"The essence of kunzhi is emptiness (sunyata). It is unlimited, absolute space; it is empty of entities, inherent existence, concepts, and boundaries. It is the empty space that seems to be external to us, the empty space that objects inhabit, and the empty space of the mind. Kunzhi has neither inside nor outside, cannot be said to exist (for it is nothing), nor not to exist (for it is reality itself). It is limitless, cannot be destroyed or created, was not born, and does not die. Language used to describe it is necessarily paradoxical, since kunzhi is beyond dualism and concept. Any linguistic construction that attempts to comprehend it is already in error and can only point to that which it cannot encompass."

 

[Anderson]

asunthatneversets :

 

The 'writing on water' part is describing a different aspect of recognizing that non-arising nature. Recognition of the nature of mind [cittatā] voids the subjective knowing reference point and results in experience being 'self-luminous' and 'self-knowing', Dzogchen terms this self arising [tib. rang byung] and self liberation [tib. rang grol]

 

 

Can you explain us using your own words and from your own experience and without the help of language used in the dozogchen tantras what "self luminous" and self knowing" means ?

Edited February 23, 2014 by Anderson

[doc benway]

... The 'writing on water' part is describing a different aspect of recognizing that non-arising nature.

 

Yes. In addition, I referenced this analogy because it reinforces the mirror analogy. The mirror is unstained by whatever it reflects and makes no judgement or selection. The water allows anything to be written in it and yet cannot be marked or affected. An important difference and weakness in the analogy is that the mirror can be cracked, the water can be dyed, the Nature of Mind cannot be affected in any way...

[C T]

Yes. In addition, I referenced this analogy because it reinforces the mirror analogy. The mirror is unstained by whatever it reflects and makes no judgement or selection. The water allows anything to be written in it and yet cannot be marked or affected. An important difference and weakness in the analogy is that the mirror can be cracked, the water can be dyed, the Nature of Mind cannot be affected in any way...

is a cracked mirror any less a mirror in essence?

 

does dyeing water remove its basic waterness?

 

[asunthatneversets]

Nice post (as are all the posts of yours that I've read so far...).

In Vajrayogini's quote "The earth outside, the stones, mountains, rocks, plants, trees and forests do not truly exist. The body inside does not truly exist. This empty and luminous mind-nature also does not truly exist. Although it does not truly exist, it cognizes everything.", if all does not "truly exist," what "everything" is there to be cognized?

Our use of language to discuss these concepts is inherently inadequate and necessarily leads to confusion.

I like Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche's comments from "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" (and everything else he has written, but I'm admittedly biased) in referring to the base (khunzi) -

"The essence of kunzhi is emptiness (sunyata). It is unlimited, absolute space; it is empty of entities, inherent existence, concepts, and boundaries. It is the empty space that seems to be external to us, the empty space that objects inhabit, and the empty space of the mind. Kunzhi has neither inside nor outside, cannot be said to exist (for it is nothing), nor not to exist (for it is reality itself). It is limitless, cannot be destroyed or created, was not born, and does not die. Language used to describe it is necessarily paradoxical, since kunzhi is beyond dualism and concept. Any linguistic construction that attempts to comprehend it is already in error and can only point to that which it cannot encompass."

 

In terms of what is cognized, there isn't truly anything which is 'cognized' per se, in terms of cognition it is said that recognition of our nature is a 'correct cognition', though this title is merely a conventional designation. From the standpoint of the definitive view, empty appearance is known to be empty appearance. Which means appearances are known to be non-arisen, essenceless, coreless, selfless, like illusions. Nothing within or behind appearance.

[asunthatneversets]

Can you explain us using your own words and from your own experience and without the help of language used in the dozogchen tantras what "self luminous" and self knowing" means ?

 

'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya].

[Jeff]

'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya].

 

If one is self luminous and self knowing, they are beyond the perception of such a thing as "meditating".

[asunthatneversets]

Yes. In addition, I referenced this analogy because it reinforces the mirror analogy. The mirror is unstained by whatever it reflects and makes no judgement or selection. The water allows anything to be written in it and yet cannot be marked or affected. An important difference and weakness in the analogy is that the mirror can be cracked, the water can be dyed, the Nature of Mind cannot be affected in any way...

 

However, there is no mirror. The nature of mind is not an X which is itself unstained. The nature of mind is the non-arising of mind, the recognition that the mind is and always has been a misconception.

 

The moment we posit a mirror, or a substantial 'something' which is itself unstained, then we have deviated from the teaching of the buddhadharma and are venturing into Hindu Vedanta and so on.

 

The 'unconditioned' is simply the correct understanding of the 'conditioned'. There is no 'unconditioned something' which is the nature of conditioned phenomena. Phenomena are empty, their emptiness is their unconditioned nature and recognizing that is wisdom.

[asunthatneversets]

If one is self luminous and self knowing, they are beyond the perception of such a thing as "meditating".

 

'Mediating' not 'meditating'.

[Jeff]

'Mediating' not 'meditating'.

 

The challenge of iPhone viewing. My apologies.

[Anderson]

 

 

'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya].

 

Ok.

But i still dont understand why you shift the emphasis from cognition to appearance.

What is the reason in saying "it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself."

 

This almost sounds like the cognition is empty and only the appearances are real .Since they arise on their own and their effort is theirs alone in arising.This way of looking at things reminds me of something i read a while back where Thusness was saying that after a while there is only manifestation appearing and appears to no one or something similar.

However in the light of what follows you conclude that both the cognition and appearances are empty.

[doc benway]

In terms of what is cognized, there isn't truly anything which is 'cognized' per se, in terms of cognition it is said that recognition of our nature is a 'correct cognition', though this title is merely a conventional designation. From the standpoint of the definitive view, empty appearance is known to be empty appearance. Which means appearances are known to be non-arisen, essenceless, coreless, selfless, like illusions. Nothing within or behind appearance.

My point exactly, and yet Vajrayogini saw fit to use the words "... it cognizes everything." when there is no it, no everything, and certainly no subject/object distinction to be found....

 

However, there is no mirror. The nature of mind is not an X which is itself unstained. The nature of mind is the non-arising of mind, the recognition that the mind is and always has been a misconception.

 

The moment we posit a mirror, or a substantial 'something' which is itself unstained, then we have deviated from the teaching of the buddhadharma and are venturing into Hindu Vedanta and so on.

 

The 'unconditioned' is simply the correct understanding of the 'conditioned'. There is no 'unconditioned something' which is the nature of conditioned phenomena. Phenomena are empty, their emptiness is their unconditioned nature and recognizing that is wisdom.

Yes, we've both acknowledged the weaknesses of the mirror analogy.

And while we're on the subject, there's no internet either but here we are...

Your objection to the use of the mirror analogy is duly noted.

And yet the Dzogchen masters have seen fit to use it as a teaching tool.

I have neither the knowledge, authority, or experience to try to improve upon their teaching methods.

The responsibility of the teacher is to offer the teaching and the context as they see fit to the student who is prepared to receive the teachings, and make corrections where necessary.

The responsibility of the student is to approach the teaching with the correct attitude and commitment, to master each lesson before advancing to the next, and to do one's best to absorb and assimilate the entire teaching as best one can.

Personally, I have found the mirror analogy (and others) useful in my practice and I have no problem letting go of the mirror as a substantial element. If I'm ever in a position to teach, I would have no problem using it as my teacher has (and does).

Every analogy, concept, and description we provide is misleading - maybe it's best to stop discussing and simply practice?

Truth be told, that's been my approach lately for the most part...

But I have enjoyed our conversation.

Thanks for that.

[asunthatneversets]

Ok.

But i still dont understand why you shift the emphasis from cognition to appearance.

What is the reason in saying "it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself."

 

This almost sounds like the cognition is empty and only the appearances are real .Since they arise on their own and their effort is theirs alone in arising.This way of looking at things reminds me of something i read a while back where Thusness was saying that after a while there is only manifestation appearing and appears to no one or something similar.

However in the light of what follows you conclude that both the cognition and appearances are empty.

 

The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness.

 

Ultimately the appearances are not valid either, but the reason the emptiness of clarity is stressed, is due to the fact that clarity [cognizance] is the factor which becomes conditioned, and so traditions like Dzogchen consider that conditioning (which appears as mind) to be the linchpin that the whole charade is centered upon. So recognition of the nature of mind is the definitive insight which causes the house of cards to collapse.

 

The mind is the factor which is sustaining ignorance and manifesting the appearance of an external world and the being(s) which inhabit(s) it. The very first link in the specific theory of dependent origination i.e. the Twelve Nidānas [the links in the cycle of pratītyasamutpāda]; is avidyā [ignorance]. The logic then follows that severing that initial ignorance means that the other 11 links have no foundation to stand on.

 

As Padmasambhava said, “Do not seek to cut the root of phenomena, cut the root of the mind", Tilopa has insight which is very close to the same: "Cut the root of a tree and the leaves will wither; cut the root of your mind and samsara falls." So recognition of the mind's nature, as co-emergent emptiness and clarity (rather than a individuated substratum) means that the 'grasper' [subject] who grasps at experience and causes the proliferation, is emptied out, implying the emptying of other-than-subject [object] (though the exhaustion of so-called outer-phenomena, and the complete exhaustion of mind, usually come later in the path).

Edited February 24, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[doc benway]

The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid].

I find cognition to be a loaded word when it comes to discussing the Nature of Mind.

Cognition implies thought, interpretation, and discrimination in most definitions I've seen.

When resting in the Nature of Mind, does cognition enter in?

I'm not sure I would use that word.

Certainly there is emptiness, lack of inherent existence, spaciousness.

Defining sunyata (those very words are paradoxical - emptiness is undefinable) has been argued for centuries.

Then there is presence, luminosity, clarity - all good words and all analogies and equally inadequate.

And most profound, perhaps, is Bodhicitta.

The inseparability of clarity and emptiness is great bliss, spontaneous exposure of oneness, boundless love.