What exactly is "grasping"?

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi,

I was reading "Meditation, Transformation and Dream Yoga" by Ven. Gyatrul Rinpoche and in it he says:

 

Direct your attention to the syllable AH as to the radiant image of the moon rising in a clear sky. From that space, direct your mind to the clear syllable AH without grasping onto it.

 

...

 

When you arrive at any of the three periods, be in any of the three postures, and with the utmost clarity meditate on the previous object without grasping onto it.

 

...

 

Once you have become steady in apprehending your dreams, you should train in them. As an antidote to grasping at something as being one, you should train in increasing it. Meditate on the guru, praying that you may train in the dreams. Then by imagining that all appearances during the daytime are dreams, dispel all grasping onto them as being real.

 

...

 

During meditative equipoise, casually release your self-illuminating, empty awareness, without contaminating it with grasping or clinging to unmediated, primordial wisdom. During the period after meditation, without grasping, decisively ascertain all appearances as being clear and empty like illusory apparitions or the appearances of a dream. By

 

...

 

In the initial stages of the practice, you will experience this state free from duality for a fleeting instant. In the second moment, dualistic grasping and clinging will resume.

 

...

 

When grasping and clinging ceases, thoughts arise as an illusion to adorn the path.

 

 

 

It seems, according to Gyatrul Rinpoche, that you can look directly at an appearance and not grasp it. But what exactly does that mean?

 

It "not grasping" something, realizing that it is an illusion, and therefore not giving it the usual conceptual analysis and proliferation of thoughts?

 

Is grasping a purely knowledge based event?

 

Is it possible to view an object or a perception without grasping at it?

 

There seems to be some component of "not grasping" that is mind-based, namely, that you stop a part of your mind from becoming active. (the part which becomes conceptual analysis). Is Buddhism training in recognizing the part of the mind that grasps and stopping it?

 

Or is grasping something deeper, like non-reification of objects or reality?

 

I was reading THE ĀKĀŚAGARBHA SŪTRA, the part below:

 

http://read.84000.co/browser/released/UT22084/066/UT22084-066-018.pdf

 

“Listen well, O companions, for bodhisattva mahāsattvas who

are beginners one must explain the six perfections with a

reference point, with the notion that suchness is expressible.

That is to say, they must understand the nature of the great

elements to be arising and perishing. Only then should they

familiarize themselves with the idea that all phenomena are in

essence inexpressible, non-arising, non-ceasing, not perceptible,

and not in the slightest way existing.

“Thus will they definitively abandon eternalism and nihilism,

and they will not be at all frightened or terrified. Once they have

ceased to relate to phenomena with attachment, [F.266.a] they

will swiftly perfect the six perfections and henceforth not remain

in either nihilism or eternalism.”

 

Is grasping "ceasing to be attached"?

 

I think it would be easy to say that grasping is all of the above instances.

What I am interested in is mainly the idea that one can perceive something but not grasp it. How exactly do you do that? Is it through belief, realization, conviction, or by focusing on it through the third eye using clairvoyance?

 

I was also reading that same text, that one must develop clairvoyance. Perhaps clairvoyance is that special way of seeing without grasping?

 

What is the benefit of peacefully abiding, allowing the mind to remain still, in a natural state which is motionless? Until you are able to develop quiescence, you will not be able to control or suppress deluded mental afflictions. They will continue to arise and control the mind. The only way to get a handle on that and put an end to it is to accomplish quiescence. Once that is accomplished, all other spiritual qualities will arise from that basis, such as superknowledge, clairvoyance, the ability to see into the minds of others, to recall the past, and so forth. These are mundane qualities that arise on the path but are developed only after the mind can abide peacefully. Qualities such as heightened awareness and clairvoyance must be developed, because it is through them that one is able to understand and realize the fundamental nature of the mind.

 

Gyatrul Rinpoche. Meditation, Transformation, And Dream Yoga (Kindle Locations 1244-1249). Kindle Edition.

 

Is it possible that a practitioner cannot practice not grasping, unless they have first developed the mudane psychic powers, as these aforequoted texts are revealing?

 

Any perspectives on grasping out there?

 

Thanks.

 

TI

 

 

 

 

 

[Spotless]

The question "what exactly is grasping?" is a very very good question though defining it exactly is not possible with words as they cannot encompass all the meanings and forms.

 

In the translation that you quoted or if it was not a translation, then in the usage of the word grasping, Gyatrul Rinpoche use the word in a variety of meanings and forms - perhaps a bit overused. At the same time, it shows just how far grasping, identifying, personalizing, qualifying, judgemental, territorial, bounding, instinctive, ancestral, conditioned, indulgent, opinionated and self certain we are in relation to virtually everything pouring I and out and through us we are.

 

Clairvoyance is not the answer - it does not hinder ones ability to judge, grasp or any form of the notion of grasping.

 

It is not a matter of learning to turn something off or to cut that out of you.

 

The general group of notions surrounding the topic of grasping grows with your practice - all of life is practice.

A great barrier to seeing much of grasping are the ideas of good vs evil, good/bad, right/wrong, just/unjust - these judgements, many of which are inborn ancestral proclivities as automatic as any well programmed robot work in the illusion. The exercise of these leads us to enjoy our judgements not only for our survival instincts but in the inflation of our identified self.

 

The refinements of our judgements enable us to fly so to speak and do all sort of acrobatics within life and we increasingly enjoy our prowess in being able to ascertain what is "stupid", who is cool and what is best.

 

We become expert robots - we can make instant calculated razor sharp judgements from the hip before the subject has even come into full view. It may be large or small but we know instantly it is Fat or Puny, oversized or not big enough, in my face or limp and wispy.

 

Oddly, when we begin to meditate we seem to be at a loss for the idea of neutrality - as though it comes naturally (at least for us it does - so we think).

 

Clairvoyance does not require neutrality, but with an increase in neutrality comes an increase in clear seeing.

 

Integrated into the grasping is our identification with all the can't we have inculcated into our realities. "This can't do that, I don't do that, it doesn't work that way, they don't do that, it's not possible, I will die, it will kill me, it's to far, it's too big, it's to high, I can't stop this thing, it's too hot, I'm freezing......................

 

On the other side of things so to speak, we have not practiced trust in our intuition, don't actually have much of a clue what that would entail - though we believe we do to an extent far far far greater than we actually do.

 

If you became a full blown clairvoyant right now, you would not believe what you see and so much of what you would see would be obscured from you until you became practiced at it - and then if you were able to stop writing books long enough to actually learn something, you would see that you know nothing with increasing frequency - and this is a great step in understanding Grasping.

 

In comprehending even the possibility that you know nothing you begin the exercise in witnessing rather than grasping. Doing nothing rather than objectifying the world. Breathing because it is what the universe does and You are not breathing - it is breathing you - you are the breath and it breathes everything. Their is no good and bad - the illusion is not part of the breath.

 

As you meditate you and your vessel become entrusted to each other - inertia looses it's hold - not by denial - it falls away on its own. Knowing relplaces thinking and judgement - fear makes no sense, it is time based.

 

Grasping is a tension, it is tension, inertia.

 

That which moves yet has no inertia, that which is still yet has no inertia - clarity with no diminishment of transmission - reception with never ending patience. These words have the patina of that which is not grasping.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Spotless

[idiot_stimpy]

Is it possible that a practitioner cannot practice not grasping.....?

 

The very act of trying to practice not grasping is a form of grasping.

 

The reaction is the same whether there be thoughts or no thoughts. The reaction is the same in both instances.

[idiot_stimpy]

 

"The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence -

it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;

so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques

is unnecessary, superfluous.

...I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.

All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,

so nothing can be done to affect me.

Those who try to approach me on a causal path,

desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,

seeking me through the ten techniques,

fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,

tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,

and transcend every sphere of activity,

so a view of me cannot be cultivated,

and the ten techniques are meaningless.

If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,

look at me, and finding nothing to see,

taking no view, remain at that zero-point.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,

so vows and discipline are redundant;

the essence is always spontaneously present,

so any effort to find it is always superfluous;

self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,

so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;

everybody already lives on my level,

so there is no place to reach through purification;

I embrace all and everything,

so there can be no path that leads to me;

I am forever incapable of dualization,

so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';

my form embraces everything,

so there has never been any 'duality';

I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,

so I can never be nailed down;

since I am the heart of total presence,

there is no other source of secret precepts."

- Samantabhadra

[yabyum24]

Is it possible to view an object or a perception without grasping at it?

Yes, but in my experience, it's very hard and virtually impossible.

 

But, l'll first try to define what I think it is. When something appears to our consciousness we instantly apply a meaning to it . We subconsciously categorize it and assign a "value" to it.

 

This happens in meditation too. Something emerges and for a split-second we abide with no judgement in the immediate experience. Then something kicks in and we grasp at it, we take ownership of it, you can see this happening.

 

How to switch that off, I'm unclear because any conscious decision to do so, is fake and itself a kind of grasping, constructed event. It's like unexpectedly falling through the cracks in the pavement! It happens of itself but only fleetingly, before we push out our hands to stop the fall.

 

It's a reflex.

[C T]

I dont think there is a need to switch off. The consideration here with regards to grasping is to develop an awareness, or habit, to see patterns in oneself which leads to self-defeating emotional reactions, and do the right thing to avert following through with arising thoughts in light of that awareness ~ train one's perception acutely enough to alter the direction of response, in other words. When one can do this with ease, then its like having the ability to cut karmic roots. Hence the writer alluded to developing mundane clairvoyance. When the awareness is fully honed, tuned sharply, watching one's thoughts immediately brings on a kind of knowledge where/when/how these thoughts will manifest. This premonition is that which helps the practitioner release the otherwise blind following-thru, in other words, to break the samsaric links one by one, until one becomes free (of clinging and aversion).

 

It says in the OP's first article that thoughts arise as illusions to adorn the path. This is a very crucial practice on the Vajrayana path.

 

 

.2 rupees.

[doc benway]

When we are first exposed to something, in that initial instant, there is simply a sensory experience.

No subject, no object, just seeing or hearing or whatever.

Very rapidly, recognition and labeling comes in to the picture and at that moment, subject and object are discriminated, and we judge.

That duality reinforces the illusion of my substantial nature and the substantial nature of the other, whatever it is.

We are either attracted or repelled, both are grasping.

We think about previous experience or project future hopes or aversion, that is grasping.

One way to deal with it is with antidotes.

Another is through transformation.

The third is to cut off ignorance at its root by seeing the grasper and what is being grasped for what it is - empty.

An ornament of the Natural State.

Grasping is a symptom of ignorance.

When the truth is known and felt, there is nothing to grasp and no one to hold on.

[rex]

Isn't Gyatrul Rinpoche advising not to fixate on mental contructs as an element of cognitive control based on hope and fear will enter and condition that which shouldn't be conditioned?

 

Edit: tpyos

Edited March 31, 2014 by rex

[Tibetan_Ice]

The question "what exactly is grasping?" is a very very good question though defining it exactly is not possible with words as they cannot encompass all the meanings and forms.

 

In the translation that you quoted or if it was not a translation, then in the usage of the word grasping, Gyatrul Rinpoche use the word in a variety of meanings and forms - perhaps a bit overused. At the same time, it shows just how far grasping, identifying, personalizing, qualifying, judgemental, territorial, bounding, instinctive, ancestral, conditioned, indulgent, opinionated and self certain we are in relation to virtually everything pouring I and out and through us we are.

 

Clairvoyance is not the answer - it does not hinder ones ability to judge, grasp or any form of the notion of grasping.

 

It is not a matter of learning to turn something off or to cut that out of you.

 

The general group of notions surrounding the topic of grasping grows with your practice - all of life is practice.

A great barrier to seeing much of grasping are the ideas of good vs evil, good/bad, right/wrong, just/unjust - these judgements, many of which are inborn ancestral proclivities as automatic as any well programmed robot work in the illusion. The exercise of these leads us to enjoy our judgements not only for our survival instincts but in the inflation of our identified self.

 

The refinements of our judgements enable us to fly so to speak and do all sort of acrobatics within life and we increasingly enjoy our prowess in being able to ascertain what is "stupid", who is cool and what is best.

 

We become expert robots - we can make instant calculated razor sharp judgements from the hip before the subject has even come into full view. It may be large or small but we know instantly it is Fat or Puny, oversized or not big enough, in my face or limp and wispy.

 

Oddly, when we begin to meditate we seem to be at a loss for the idea of neutrality - as though it comes naturally (at least for us it does - so we think).

 

Clairvoyance does not require neutrality, but with an increase in neutrality comes an increase in clear seeing.

 

Integrated into the grasping is our identification with all the can't we have inculcated into our realities. "This can't do that, I don't do that, it doesn't work that way, they don't do that, it's not possible, I will die, it will kill me, it's to far, it's too big, it's to high, I can't stop this thing, it's too hot, I'm freezing......................

 

On the other side of things so to speak, we have not practiced trust in our intuition, don't actually have much of a clue what that would entail - though we believe we do to an extent far far far greater than we actually do.

 

If you became a full blown clairvoyant right now, you would not believe what you see and so much of what you would see would be obscured from you until you became practiced at it - and then if you were able to stop writing books long enough to actually learn something, you would see that you know nothing with increasing frequency - and this is a great step in understanding Grasping.

 

In comprehending even the possibility that you know nothing you begin the exercise in witnessing rather than grasping. Doing nothing rather than objectifying the world. Breathing because it is what the universe does and You are not breathing - it is breathing you - you are the breath and it breathes everything. Their is no good and bad - the illusion is not part of the breath.

 

As you meditate you and your vessel become entrusted to each other - inertia looses it's hold - not by denial - it falls away on its own. Knowing relplaces thinking and judgement - fear makes no sense, it is time based.

 

Grasping is a tension, it is tension, inertia.

 

That which moves yet has no inertia, that which is still yet has no inertia - clarity with no diminishment of transmission - reception with never ending patience. These words have the patina of that which is not grasping.

Hi Spotless,

I am a full blown clairvoyant, and then some. I'm not interested in that. It just more of the same, the physical, just replicated without form. Or a future event, predictable and confirmed..

 

Much of your response has addressed the playground of the conceptual mind. But I think you've touched upon some of the levels and issues of grasping.

 

I don't know why you would contradict what Gyatrul Rinpoche has said about the need for mundane siddhis in order to realize the nature of mind:

 

"Qualities such as heightened awareness and clairvoyance must be developed, because it is through them that one is able to understand and realize the fundamental nature of the mind."

 

I've heard similar stories, from Alan Wallace and other Buddhists who say that unless one gains these mundane siddhis/powers, you can't really help anyone. You can't look into their past, see their karma or assess their level of development. Without empowering the mind through shamatha and realizing levels of jhana or samadhi, you have no means to break out of your baser conceptual mind which is veiling the true reality.

 

It is easy to grasp at reality, to grasp at the contents of dreams or the astral planes. It is easy to grasp at the idea that we exists, that we are someone, a self.. And, no, I don't agree with you. I have dissolved the physical world many times and ended up in a wide open dark space, a jelly fish of light suspended in the middle of nowhere, but I still believe that I exist in human form. So, clairvoyance, or realizing different planes doesn't stop a person from grasping.. If anything, they serve to solidify dualism into a 'self' who has realized the finer statums of physical existence.

 

When you say "It is not a matter of learning to turn something off or to cut that out of you.", it reminds of me of the idea that "disinterest" is one method of turning off grasping. It is like a switch that you turn on of off. If you just plainly are not interested in something, you don't put any energy into it, you couldn't care less, you see it with your mind but it really means nothing to you. You don't grasp at it.

 

Another method I've read about from Dzogchen Bon teachings, is, in order to not grasp at a thought, you look directly at it. You turn your mind and look at it straight on. When you do that, the thought does not proliferate. If you hold that mental position, not only does it stop the mind momentarily, but the thought eventually dissolves. If you keep your attention focused on the location where the thought used to be, you will see a small clear space over a dark background. The space is kind of luminous. That space is the son rigpa, the local awareness momentarily unveiled. You might be familiar with that space since you seem to have developed some psychic abilities. It is the region where clairvoyance and intuition appear, lightning fast and always accurate.

 

Anyway, thanks for your response.

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

The very act of trying to practice not grasping is a form of grasping.

 

The reaction is the same whether there be thoughts or no thoughts. The reaction is the same in both instances.

Hi Idiot Stimpy..

You should really change your name cause I can't poke fun at it without making it look like I'm trying to insult you.. LOL

 

I agree with what you have written. Trying not to grasp is a form of reverse grasping in the same way as trying to not avert is also a form of grasping. I think the key that so many teachers talk about is to not "try". The natural state does not perfrom any action whatsoever in the normal sense of the term and by trying to do something, not only are you keeping the doer doing, but by doing you are creating veils.

 

Good point.

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

 

"The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence -

it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;

so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques

is unnecessary, superfluous.

...I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.

All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,

so nothing can be done to affect me.

Those who try to approach me on a causal path,

desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,

seeking me through the ten techniques,

fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,

tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,

and transcend every sphere of activity,

so a view of me cannot be cultivated,

and the ten techniques are meaningless.

If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,

look at me, and finding nothing to see,

taking no view, remain at that zero-point.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,

so vows and discipline are redundant;

the essence is always spontaneously present,

so any effort to find it is always superfluous;

self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,

so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;

everybody already lives on my level,

so there is no place to reach through purification;

I embrace all and everything,

so there can be no path that leads to me;

I am forever incapable of dualization,

so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';

my form embraces everything,

so there has never been any 'duality';

I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,

so I can never be nailed down;

since I am the heart of total presence,

there is no other source of secret precepts."

- Samantabhadra

 

I also like this. It reminds me of the idea that "It is so close to you that the second you start to search for it, you have already missed it".

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Yes, but in my experience, it's very hard and virtually impossible.

 

But, l'll first try to define what I think it is. When something appears to our consciousness we instantly apply a meaning to it . We subconsciously categorize it and assign a "value" to it.

 

This happens in meditation too. Something emerges and for a split-second we abide with no judgement in the immediate experience. Then something kicks in and we grasp at it, we take ownership of it, you can see this happening.

 

How to switch that off, I'm unclear because any conscious decision to do so, is fake and itself a kind of grasping, constructed event. It's like unexpectedly falling through the cracks in the pavement! It happens of itself but only fleetingly, before we push out our hands to stop the fall.

 

It's a reflex.

Hi Yabyum

I agree. It is very hard to train one's self to quit grasping. It requires allot of mindfulness and allot of effort. There always seems to be a function of mind, that loves to look back and see if the mind is grasping. And, by doing that, you are grasping.

 

There is much to be said for the concept that in the first moment when you turn your attention to a stimulus, you are not grasping. If you keep moving your attention every split second, the conceptual mind has no time to grasp and you can sort of artificially experience a prolonged state of not grasping. It also is a bit more powerful if you can move your attention every split second to scenes or sensations that you love.

 

Yes, it's a reflex but one that we have to train in and overcome.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

I dont think there is a need to switch off. The consideration here with regards to grasping is to develop an awareness, or habit, to see patterns in oneself which leads to self-defeating emotional reactions, and do the right thing to avert following through with arising thoughts in light of that awareness ~ train one's perception acutely enough to alter the direction of response, in other words. When one can do this with ease, then its like having the ability to cut karmic roots. Hence the writer alluded to developing mundane clairvoyance. When the awareness is fully honed, tuned sharply, watching one's thoughts immediately brings on a kind of knowledge where/when/how these thoughts will manifest. This premonition is that which helps the practitioner release the otherwise blind following-thru, in other words, to break the samsaric links one by one, until one becomes free (of clinging and aversion).

 

It says in the OP's first article that thoughts arise as illusions to adorn the path. This is a very crucial practice on the Vajrayana path.

 

 

.2 rupees.

Hi CT

If, by altering the direction of response, you also include "no response", then I would have to agree with you.

As for cutting karmic roots in the way that you have described, I have read similar topics where they say that karma is the aspect of believing the little voice in your head that produces your thoughts and acting off of them. If you could sustain a consecutive span of ignoring the voice then you would be free of your karma, because that little voice functions from karma. I know it's not that simple because all beliefs and mental constructs are much more than just the little voice in the head, but I think the same concept would apply.

 

Also, some times, when I'm meditating and get carried away, once I realize that I have been carried away, I will trace back the thoughts to the thought that started the whole chain reaction. It is an interesting technique. After tracing back to the cause, it seems to be easier to get back to the mindful place that I was before. The whole effect seems to be that we have thoughts that are watching other thoughts. So, perhaps thoughts have grasping built into them?

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

When we are first exposed to something, in that initial instant, there is simply a sensory experience.

No subject, no object, just seeing or hearing or whatever.

Very rapidly, recognition and labeling comes in to the picture and at that moment, subject and object are discriminated, and we judge.

That duality reinforces the illusion of my substantial nature and the substantial nature of the other, whatever it is.

We are either attracted or repelled, both are grasping.

We think about previous experience or project future hopes or aversion, that is grasping.

One way to deal with it is with antidotes.

Another is through transformation.

The third is to cut off ignorance at its root by seeing the grasper and what is being grasped for what it is - empty.

An ornament of the Natural State.

Grasping is a symptom of ignorance.

When the truth is known and felt, there is nothing to grasp and no one to hold on.

Hi Steve

I mostly agree with what you've said. I have a few elaborations.

 

I would say that we are attracted, repelled or indifferent/neutral. But, the problem is that we believe them, or give them substance.

 

Yes, conceptual proliferation is grasping, but it is also possilbe to grasp a single thought without the conceptual proliferation or mental tree that builds up around the thought. So it's not just growing the tree of reactive thoughts, but stopping the single seed before it grows.

 

Yes, seeing the grasped and the grasper is part of it. But you have to ask yourself, who is seeing the duality of the grasper and and grasped? In my experience, there is this wide open space that is aware of both the grasper and grasped at that same time. It is further behind. I think the grasper is the "I" thought and it appears whenever there is something to grasp. It seems like every single thought has the "I" thought built in!

 

Also, when you say "grasping is a symptom of ignorance", I think it is important to define ignorance in the Buddhist context. Ignorance is the term used to identify the states of mind that do not realize that reality is a manifestion of the five pure lights. So the five lights manifest into the Buddhist five elements or earth, water, fire, air and space. When we are no longer ignorant, we realize the emptiness of the elements and gain all sorts of nifty powers like being able to walk through walls, fly.. etc.. (Aren't you glad I didn't say the three kayas?) So, on one hand of the bifurcation, you are ignorant and samsara arises, On the other hand, you are no longer ignorant and nirvana arises from the five pure lights. The only thing I can't figure out is that apparently, both samsara and nirvana are illusions and in that huge space, there doesn't seem to be anything in there..

 

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Isn't Gyatrul Rinpoche advising not to fixate on mental contructs as an element of cognitive control based on hope and fear will enter and condition that which shouldn't be conditioned?

 

Edit: tpyos

Hi Rex,

Actually, I'm not quite sure what Gyatrul is saying. I used to think that "not grasping" was "averting", until I learned that "averting" is a form of grasping. It sounds to me that Gyatrul is saying that there is a mode of perception wherby you can perceive something, yet not grasp at it. I'm not really clear about this, which is why I posted this topic.

 

[doc benway]

I would say that we are attracted, repelled or indifferent/neutral. But, the problem is that we believe them, or give them substance.

 

How would you say we do that, give them substance?

It seems to me that it is the very nature of attraction/aversion and thought that does it.

Attraction and aversion cleave "us" from "it" and thought further reinforces that separation by projecting us into the past or future.

It is subtle and completely pervasive. That is why it's so difficult to see through.

Certainly, our very sensory apparatus and mobility contributes to the illusion of separation as well.

And clearly we've been conditioned to accept our separation from everything outside our bag of skin from childhood.

But when you say that we believe and give them substance, what else is there that is going on that creates the belief or adds substance?

[C T]

Hi CT

If, by altering the direction of response, you also include "no response", then I would have to agree with you.

As for cutting karmic roots in the way that you have described, I have read similar topics where they say that karma is the aspect of believing the little voice in your head that produces your thoughts and acting off of them. If you could sustain a consecutive span of ignoring the voice then you would be free of your karma, because that little voice functions from karma. I know it's not that simple because all beliefs and mental constructs are much more than just the little voice in the head, but I think the same concept would apply.

 

Also, some times, when I'm meditating and get carried away, once I realize that I have been carried away, I will trace back the thoughts to the thought that started the whole chain reaction. It is an interesting technique. After tracing back to the cause, it seems to be easier to get back to the mindful place that I was before. The whole effect seems to be that we have thoughts that are watching other thoughts. So, perhaps thoughts have grasping built into them?

 

Hello TI,

 

If you are able to retrace your thoughts, it means there is a good level of clarity. That is very good indeed.

 

That idea of thoughts watching thoughts seems quite interesting, although i'm not sure about thoughts having inbuilt grasping as a kind of default setting. Will have to think about that one.

[Tibetan_Ice]

How would you say we do that, give them substance?

It seems to me that it is the very nature of attraction/aversion and thought that does it.

Attraction and aversion cleave "us" from "it" and thought further reinforces that separation by projecting us into the past or future.

It is subtle and completely pervasive. That is why it's so difficult to see through.

Certainly, our very sensory apparatus and mobility contributes to the illusion of separation as well.

And clearly we've been conditioned to accept our separation from everything outside our bag of skin from childhood.

But when you say that we believe and give them substance, what else is there that is going on that creates the belief or adds substance?

Hi Steve,

The purpose of my comment to that line was to include the idea that neutral objects, those objects which we neither crave nor avert still have the qualities of solidity, color, texture etc.

 

So "how do we give them substance?", I would answer with another question.

Why can't we walk through walls or leave footprints in stone? There is some mechanism that is functioning that is preventing us from realizing the emptiness of walls and stone.

 

Perhaps it is the rising of the impure five lights that results in walls and stones being solid.

 

Perhaps if we didn't believe we would not give our mental formations substance?

 

Perhaps we are grasping at the impure five lights and need to get back to the source without grasping. Thus the mind that is manifested from the pure five lights wouldn't be imprisoned by the impure qualities of solidity, heat, cold, time etc.

 

TI

[doc benway]

Hi Steve,

The purpose of my comment to that line was to include the idea that neutral objects, those objects which we neither crave nor avert still have the qualities of solidity, color, texture etc.

 

So "how do we give them substance?", I would answer with another question.

Why can't we walk through walls or leave footprints in stone? There is some mechanism that is functioning that is preventing us from realizing the emptiness of walls and stone.

 

Perhaps it is the rising of the impure five lights that results in walls and stones being solid.

 

Perhaps if we didn't believe we would not give our mental formations substance?

 

Perhaps we are grasping at the impure five lights and need to get back to the source without grasping. Thus the mind that is manifested from the pure five lights wouldn't be imprisoned by the impure qualities of solidity, heat, cold, time etc.

 

TI

 

I tend to think that things, even the impure things, are as they are.

I won't go as far to use words like supposed to be, for a reason, should be, etc...

We see what we see, feel what we feel, and that is our current condition.

I think it goes beyond belief.

I also think it goes beyond explanations and analysis...

[Spotless]

Deleted because it was a duplicate

Edited April 13, 2014 by Spotless

[Spotless]

Hi Spotless,

I am a full blown clairvoyant, and then some. I'm not interested in that. It just more of the same, the physical, just replicated without form. Or a future event, predictable and confirmed..

 

Much of your response has addressed the playground of the conceptual mind. But I think you've touched upon some of the levels and issues of grasping.

 

I don't know why you would contradict what Gyatrul Rinpoche has said about the need for mundane siddhis in order to realize the nature of mind:

 

"Qualities such as heightened awareness and clairvoyance must be developed, because it is through them that one is able to understand and realize the fundamental nature of the mind."

 

I've heard similar stories, from Alan Wallace and other Buddhists who say that unless one gains these mundane siddhis/powers, you can't really help anyone. You can't look into their past, see their karma or assess their level of development. Without empowering the mind through shamatha and realizing levels of jhana or samadhi, you have no means to break out of your baser conceptual mind which is veiling the true reality.

 

Quote from Tibetan_Ice in response to my post:

 

It is easy to grasp at reality, to grasp at the contents of dreams or the astral planes. It is easy to grasp at the idea that we exists, that we are someone, a self.. And, no, I don't agree with you. I have dissolved the physical world many times and ended up in a wide open dark space, a jelly fish of light suspended in the middle of nowhere, but I still believe that I exist in human form. So, clairvoyance, or realizing different planes doesn't stop a person from grasping.. If anything, they serve to solidify dualism into a 'self' who has realized the finer statums of physical existence.

End Quote

 

It appears that you agree with me completely, at least in so far as what it was my intention to convey.

 

" So, clairvoyance, or realizing different planes doesn't stop a person from grasping.. If anything, they serve to solidify dualism into a 'self' who has realized the finer statums of physical existence."

 

Clairvoyance has many benefits as I know well, but it is not the "answer" for the topic of this post.

 

One can be "a full blown psychic" and grasp at practically everything there is to grasp at. The clarity is colored by those graspings as surely as you have stated.

 

Taken in context I have in no way contradicted Gyatrul Rinpoche. And in your reference to Allan Wallace you refer to clairvoyance in the context of helping someone - which is off topic regarding this post.

 

It has struck me as very odd that in your original post you say:

 

 

"I was also reading that same text, that one must develop clairvoyance. Perhaps clairvoyance is that special way of seeing without grasping?"

 

You have stated that you are a "full blown Psychic and then some" yet in your original post you clearly play the position of someone on the outside of that knowledge/ability.

 

I have no interest in sparring, I find your comments out of context and or confusing.

I enjoy practical discussion.

 

Perhaps we should be taking this thread to a discussion of neutrality and methods of dissipating grasping? Your original post seemed to be of a person trying to grasp the notion of grasping.

 

I remember not so long ago when you were not a "full blown psychic and then some".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2014 by Spotless

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

 

Back on topic: Some Buddhists claim that you can only recognize the natural state/primordial awareness by becoming clairvoyant. This is supported by the fact that many many teachings say that shamatha/vispassana or the corresponding version of it in the different schools is a necessary preliminary practice. Most all teachers claim that shamatha practice will develop the mundane siddhis (psychic powers). Could it be that clairvoyance, a mundane siddhi, is necessary in order to realize rigpa/primordial wisdom/the natural state? Several Bon teachings indicate that first you practice the preliminary practices, and then once having achieved a certain stability of mind, the teacher points out the nature of mind to the student. Therefore, the implication being, that stabilizing the mind through gradualy refined forms of grasping to non-grasping is part of the process and will reveal the natural state all on it's own. Even Buddha, teaching the jhanas, said that the jhanas are a stepping stone to enlightenment. The jhanas empower the mind. With the empowered mind, it is easier to see that this reality is no different from the dream worlds, the astral planes, the illusion of it all.

 

I found an interesting definition of grasping in "Pointing Out the Nature of Mind - Dzogchen Pith Instructions of Aro Yeshe Junge.

He says:

 

Grasping refers to the subjectively-oriented mental process of taking hold of, apprehending, seizing, or clinging to perceptions. In simple terms, grasping means believing that one's thoughts and emotions are true, and then speaking and acting with this as a foundation.

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[idiot_stimpy]

Further, if you have no interest in sparring, then perhaps you should stay away from forums..

 

What is there to fight for?

 

Isn't TTB's forum about sharing?

[deci belle]

Not grasping is not entertaining views of self and other. Not grasping eventually becomes one's functional operative.

 

It's not that it is hard to do, it is just difficult forgetting grasping in terms of one's lifelong entertainment of views of self and other.

 

In terms of meditation states, this is smiling at the thought of meditation states and not lingering. Why? To consider meditation states as different than your own mind is your own mind minding mind as other than just mind~

 

That's grasping.

[forestofclarity]

When I was investigating this, I found this post helpful:

 

http://wisdomthroughmindfulness.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-clinging-buddhist-take-on-it.html