What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[Ish]

ever present display of your own nature.

 

What is that?

[Anderson]

What is that?

 

Think of a lamp which is on.

We are always on and that means we are obvious or evident to ourselves while the vicinity is also evident.

But the vicinity is only evident because we are turned on.

In other words the meaning of emptiness is found in the fact that vicinity is only evident due to us being turned on.

[Apech]

I hope this isn't your trump card.

[doc benway]

Think of a lamp which is on.

We are always on and that means we are obvious or evident to ourselves while the vicinity is also evident.

But the vicinity is only evident because we are turned on.

In other words the meaning of emptiness is found in the fact that vicinity is only evident due to us being turned on.

 

Really?

And you had the audacity to bust my balls for using the word basis?

 

It's good to see you've been able to answer your question.

What counts is how much that will help you with integration.

I hope it works for you.

 

 

[doc benway]

Which points to the emptiness of the eyes. For me, wherever there is change there is emptiness.

 

Personally, I don't see emptiness is as rare or complicated as it is spoken of in Tibetan circles online.

 

But I don't mean to interrupt a Dzogchen thread.

I never find your posts to be an interruption.

 

Another reminder for me of empty nature is the inability to isolate anything.

[asunthatneversets]

Think of a lamp which is on.We are always on and that means we are obvious or evident to ourselves while the vicinity is also evident.But the vicinity is only evident because we are turned on.In other words the meaning of emptiness is found in the fact that vicinity is only evident due to us being turned on.

That is definitely not the meaning of emptiness.

[asunthatneversets]

"If one knows [shes] the buddhahood that has always been [ye] naturally formed by nature, there will be buddhahood of clear realization. That is the definition of wisdom [ye shes]."

- Rigpa Rangshar tantra [per Malcolm]

[asunthatneversets]

This word yeshe gets thrown about all the time by dzogchen scholars but so far i haven't found a satisfactory answer about what exactly is wisdom in the day to day circumstances like when you drink your coffee or when you walk your dog or in cases where you have to choose between this and that and so on...

What is wisdom in those circumstances ?

 

If you can't answer this question without terms like "non-arisen", "illusory" "empty of characteristics", "non-inherent" then i am afraid to say that your theoretical grasp of dozgchen view doesn't match your experiential understanding of dzogchen praxis.

 

For me it is fundamental that when you talk like"nothing is inherently real" , "one's nature, is originally pure and self-perfected" ,that you can lay it bare in front of you right now and say " and the experience of that is like this and this and this".

 

I am not satisfied anymore with this kind of formulations and the dozgchen jargon which can give a false impression that someone is very learned when in reality they've only read books and their experience is nada.

 

For me it is of paramount importance that the things that i was taught can be implemented in day to day circumstances.I work with people with challenging behavior where there is always a threat for your safety and these days i am increasingly convinced that to develop the ability to apply dzogchen in these circumstances it remains at the level of a nice ideal.

If you've recognized the nature of phenomena then "non-arisen", "illusory" "empty of characteristics", "non-inherent" and so on are accurate descriptions of that insight..

 

Wisdom simply means you posses an accurate and direct non-conceptual knowledge of your state. Hence 'gnas lugs', which is popularly translated as 'the natural state', but actually means something like 'the (actual) way things are'.

[Anderson]

"If one knows [shes] the buddhahood that has always been [ye] naturally formed by nature, there will be buddhahood of clear realization. That is the definition of wisdom [ye shes]."

- Rigpa Rangshar tantra [per Malcolm]

 

Total gibberish.

You couldn't have picked a more obscure and incomprehensible explanation of wisdom.

[doc benway]

Total gibberish.

You couldn't have picked a more obscure and incomprehensible explanation of wisdom.

 

Interesting how you attack the quotation and the person offering it to you, rather than look at your own inability to make use of it at this point in your life. Just like you did with the word basis. This is a great example of how we impute our ills and suffering on things and people outside of us when the fundamental issue is our own ignorance.

 

i don't mean to attack you personally but I think this sort of thing is a great opportunity for learning for all of us and I hope you're open enough to look at this. it is a pattern that we all tend towards. If you don't want to look at it, that's fine to and it is your karma.

 

The quote is actually brilliant, concise, and absolutely clear, if you've had the experience, but unhelpful and incomprehensible if you have no frame of reference to relate it to. So it is two very different things to two different, intelligent people who are speaking the same language. This is a clue to the emptiness of concepts and ideas, even the concept of Buddhahood. A more concrete analogy is how humans and fish experience water. Water is water yet fish breath it and humans drown in it. It is home to fish and a bath for people. Both view it with direct and valid cognition but in completely different ways, therefore water cannot have any true existence from its own side and yet it is certainly not non-existent as we drink it daily.

[rex]

How about a nice dictionaryish definition?

 

"A basic definition of wisdom is the judicious application of knowledge."

 

Apply according to level of discernment and capacity.

 

In dzogchen wisdom is not only the application of knowledge but the knowlege itself.

Edited June 9, 2014 by rex

[Anderson]

Interesting how you attack the quotation and the person offering it to you, rather than look at your own inability to make use of it at this point in your life. Just like you did with the word basis. This is a great example of how we impute our ills and suffering on things and people outside of us when the fundamental issue is our own ignorance.

 

i don't mean to attack you personally but I think this sort of thing is a great opportunity for learning for all of us and I hope you're open enough to look at this. it is a pattern that we all tend towards. If you don't want to look at it, that's fine to and it is your karma.

 

The quote is actually brilliant, concise, and absolutely clear, if you've had the experience, but unhelpful and incomprehensible if you have no frame of reference to relate it to. So it is two very different things to two different, intelligent people who are speaking the same language. This is a clue to the emptiness of concepts and ideas, even the concept of Buddhahood. A more concrete analogy is how humans and fish experience water. Water is water yet fish breath it and humans drown in it. It is home to fish and a bath for people. Both view it with direct and valid cognition but in completely different ways, therefore water cannot have any true existence from its own side and yet it is certainly not non-existent as we drink it daily.

 

 

What the hell is buddhahood ?

And what the hell is naturally formed by nature ? (By what "nature" and what is "naturally formed")

And what the hell is buddhahood of clear realization.

("Clear realisation" is such a generic term -"Yesterday i had a very clear realisation as to the fact that my dog is not a cat")

 

Tell me how do these expressions relate to your experience right now ?

What is "buddhahood" , "naturally formed by nature " and "buddhahood of clear realization" right now , tell me??

I need you to get real and verify if your experience right now has any resemblance to whatever these things mean.

 

I dont need people like Kyle with his scholarly wannabe attitude to come here and litter the place up with quotes written in an alien language.All he does is that he always hides behind very well choreographed answers littered with quotes and written in a jargon that smells from a mile of I-have-my-head-so-far-up-my-ass-that-i-can't-be-bothered-with-ignorants-like-you.

Don't you see that he is incapable of giving straight answers , experiential answers , which come from direct experience of the teachings ?

People who have had direct experience of the knowledge of dzogchen, when explaining of how it is to rest in nature they don't use language like "i experience the display as non-arisen".What the hell is non-arisen?

 

They use the language of experience which is the language used in the following paragraph taken from "journey to certainty" the book you love:

When the ordinary mind meets with the condition of an outer object, an afflictive emotion will arise. If, when the afflictive emotion arises, we rest effortlessly free of concepts on top of its arising, this could be perfect purity, but it is not necessarily so. However, if effort is made on top of the emotion's arising, conceptuality is definitely present.

We should examine the phrase on top of that arising.

This is an important phrase to understand. However, its meaning is experiential rather than intellectual

Or the following from Longchenpa:

In the direct encounter between your consciousness and sense ob-

jects, you identify consciousness as a bare state of resting naturally. As I

indicated earlier, in letting go-by resting imperturbably, resting in the

immediacy of perception, resting naturally-you gain natural freedom,

the natural state of naked dharmakaya.

However your consciousness reacts to the sense objects it perceives,

whether indulging in or suppressing them, do not look at the essence of

these feelings, meditate on them, or seek some alternative, for by your

simply identifying bare awareness, they are free in their true nature.

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

They are free in

the sense of being timelessly free once you perceive their timelessly pure

essence. They are free in their own place once you rest directly in the

natural state of rest. They are free in the sense of being free in your im-

mediate perception of them, for they fade away directly in the context in

which they manifest. They are free in the sense of being completely free

once you have realized they have no basis-there is nothing that is not

free. And they are free in the very moment, for they occur in such a way

that they are free even as they arise. Regardless of what circumstance

manifests-no matter what appears or arises-it is awareness's own

manifestation and poses no threat to yogins of the great perfection.

[ralis]

 

What the hell is buddhahood ?

And what the hell is naturally formed by nature ? (By what "nature" and what is "naturally formed")

And what the hell is buddhahood of clear realization.

("Clear realisation" is such a generic term -"Yesterday i had a very clear realisation as to the fact that my dog is not a cat")

 

Tell me how do these expressions relate to your experience right now ?

What is "buddhahood" , "naturally formed by nature " and "buddhahood of clear realization" right now , tell me??

I need you to get real and verify if your experience right now has any resemblance to whatever these things mean.

 

I dont need people like Kyle with his scholarly wannabe attitude to come here and litter the place up with quotes written in an alien language.All he does is that he always hides behind very well choreographed answers littered with quotes and written in a jargon that smells from a mile of I-have-my-head-so-far-up-my-ass-that-i-can't-be-bothered-with-ignorants-like-you.

Don't you see that he is incapable of giving straight answers , experiential answers , which come from direct experience of the teachings ?

People who have had direct experience of the knowledge of dzogchen, when explaining of how it is to rest in nature they don't use language like "i experience the display as non-arisen".What the hell is non-arisen?

 

They use the language of experience which is the language used in the following paragraph taken from "journey to certainty" the book you love:

When the ordinary mind meets with the condition of an outer object, an afflictive emotion will arise. If, when the afflictive emotion arises, we rest effortlessly free of concepts on top of its arising, this could be perfect purity, but it is not necessarily so. However, if effort is made on top of the emotion's arising, conceptuality is definitely present.

We should examine the phrase on top of that arising.

This is an important phrase to understand. However, its meaning is experiential rather than intellectual

Or the following from Longchenpa:

In the direct encounter between your consciousness and sense ob-

jects, you identify consciousness as a bare state of resting naturally. As I

indicated earlier, in letting go-by resting imperturbably, resting in the

immediacy of perception, resting naturally-you gain natural freedom,

the natural state of naked dharmakaya.

However your consciousness reacts to the sense objects it perceives,

whether indulging in or suppressing them, do not look at the essence of

these feelings, meditate on them, or seek some alternative, for by your

simply identifying bare awareness, they are free in their true nature.

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

They are free in

the sense of being timelessly free once you perceive their timelessly pure

essence. They are free in their own place once you rest directly in the

natural state of rest. They are free in the sense of being free in your im-

mediate perception of them, for they fade away directly in the context in

which they manifest. They are free in the sense of being completely free

once you have realized they have no basis-there is nothing that is not

free. And they are free in the very moment, for they occur in such a way

that they are free even as they arise. Regardless of what circumstance

manifests-no matter what appears or arises-it is awareness's own

manifestation and poses no threat to yogins of the great perfection.

 

Excellent remarks!

 

I argued with several Buddhists on this site for years and not one was able to offer a satisfactory explanation to the questions you are posing. Buddhists are trapped in absolutist anthropocentric ideology. Buddhists fall back on 'non being' and conveniently ignore the rest of the Hegelian dialectic; 'being, not being and becoming'.

Edited June 9, 2014 by ralis

[Apech]

Excellent remarks!

 

I argued with several Buddhists on this site for years and not one was able to offer a satisfactory explanation to the questions you are posing. Buddhists are trapped in absolutist anthropocentric ideology. Buddhists fall back on 'non being' and conveniently ignore the rest of the Hegelian dialectic; 'being, not being and becoming'.

 

I agree with the idea of getting rid of these phrases like non-arising and so on ... but surely they come from translating a technical use of the Tibetan language to a subject which was central to their thought for 1000 years. The terminology they developed is precise in context but does not bear translation into everyday English.

 

I also agree that many Buddhist like to concentrate on non-being instead of properly embracing Nagajuna's refusal to take a position on existence, non-existence etc. Again this is a philosophical position which is quite hard to comprehend and while being fundamental to the Mahayana 'view' its not actually meant to be some kind of ideology.

 

I am a Buddhist and I am not "trapped in absolutist anthropocentric ideology" and I'm actually not sure why you think I might be. But I am all for plain speaking based on personal experience and less of these contorted intellectual labels which Dzogchen particularly seems to generate (for some reason).

[rex]

But I am all for plain speaking based on personal experience and less of these contorted intellectual labels which Dzogchen particularly seems to generate (for some reason).

Part of the problem stems from injunctions not to discuss personal experiences in public with people who may not be fellow practitioners. It's okay to discuss general view and philosophical positions but one's personal practice has to be kept secret.

[doc benway]

"If one knows [shes] the buddhahood that has always been [ye] naturally formed by nature, there will be buddhahood of clear realization. That is the definition of wisdom [ye shes]."

- Rigpa Rangshar tantra [per Malcolm]

 

 

What the hell is buddhahood ?

And what the hell is naturally formed by nature ? (By what "nature" and what is "naturally formed")

And what the hell is buddhahood of clear realization.

("Clear realisation" is such a generic term -"Yesterday i had a very clear realisation as to the fact that my dog is not a cat")

 

Tell me how do these expressions relate to your experience right now ?

What is "buddhahood" , "naturally formed by nature " and "buddhahood of clear realization" right now , tell me??

I need you to get real and verify if your experience right now has any resemblance to whatever these things mean.

 

First I need you to show me the color green in words so that I know with certainty how the word green relates to your visual experience right now. Then explain the taste of a mango so that I can taste it, even if I've never had that experience.

 

For communication to be effective and unambiguous, the words need to point to an experience that each party can relate to.

 

Non-arising may be a phrase you don't like but how else to describe the direct experience of that which was never born, can never die, and is always renewing in each and every instant? It's more than just translating technical Tibetan terminology, it's communicating an experience of something that is very precise and yet very difficult to put into words.

 

Clear realization may not be a phrase you want to hear but how else to describe the moment when you feel like you've been hit over the head with a brick and feel, deeper than you ever thought possible, the absolute knowledge of exactly what you are and what everything is and it changes your life forever in profound ways? It's not clear realization of just anything, it is clear realization of the nature of being. It is quite specific and not at all subtle and anyone who has had that experience will know exactly what the Rigpa Rangshar is pointing to.

 

I wish I could make you understand how a mango tastes through words but I can't.

I can say it's sour and sweet but does that capture the essence of mango flavor?

 

I don't know what Kyle feels or knows or what his experience has been.

Maybe it's just the skillful selection of quotations or maybe he's had a glimpse and can directly relate to those quotations.

Only he can tell us that and it's not easy to open up and share these experiences with people, especially anonymous people who tend to be harshly critical rather than supportive and loving.

 

And it's possible that I'm completely full of shit and just saying the right words and parroting and that is a limitation of this mode of anonymous, impersonal communication.

[gatito]

<snip.

 

And it's possible that I'm completely full of shit and just saying the right words and parroting .... <snip>

 

I think not steve.

 

I think that it may well be the case that pure consciousness gave itself a glimpse of itself shining in all its glory in the complete absence of objects and time.

 

But it's impossible to be certain without meeting someone in person - and even then, it can take a while...

 

What is certain is that no two people describe it in the same way and yet it's impossible to fake it to someone to whom it's revealed itself.

[Simple_Jack]

People who have had direct experience of the knowledge of dzogchen, when explaining of how it is to rest in nature they don't use language like "i experience the display as non-arisen".What the hell is non-arisen?

 

They use the language of experience which is the language used in the following paragraph taken from "journey to certainty" the book you love...

 

C'mon now, there's no need to create any arbitrary dichotomies when discussing core principles common to Mahayana (using this as an umbrella term); even Zen talks about non-arising. Quote time!:

 

Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising -- Manjushri states in PP sutras "Whatever arises dependently, just that does not arise in truth."

 

The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, [emptiness, unborn,] etc., are all synonyms.

 

This is why Manjushri says "Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise."

 

The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

 

It means simply that when you examine dependently originated phenomena you cannot ascertain that they ever arose.

 

Emptiness, in Mahāyāna, specifically refers to the absence of the four extremes in phenomena...Since phenomena cannot be found by any of the four extremes, they are illusory, and ultimately nonarisen.

 

A Buddhas omniscience is predicated on the fact that all objects of knowledge, including buddhahood itself, are completely illusory.

 

This is also the view of Dzogchen i.e. everything, including buddhahood, etc., is completely equivalent to an illusion; not "like an illusion", as some people in Mahāyāna with a poor understanding hedge -- completely equivalent.

 

...it is in fact the intent of Madhyamaka to point out that there is no reality, per se. Saying there is "no reality" [gnas lugs med pa] is quite different than saying reality does not exist. In fact it is basic "Heart Sutra" and is non-controversial.

...

 

I never claimed reality existed, therefore I am free of the fault of claiming it does not exist. When someone points out your bank account is empty, is it their fault that you have no money? Have they destroyed money you thought you had? Of course not. It is the same when stating "there is no reality". This is merely pointing out the conclusion of freedom from all extremes.

 

Āryānantamukhapariśodhananirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

The Sugata said "existence" and "nonexistence" are extremes; whatever does not exist in the extremes, that also does not exist in the middle.

 

Ārya-varmavyūhanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Since this vehicle is without extremes,

also the extreme of the middle does not exist.

 

Ārya-kāśyapaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

 

Kāśyapa, "permanence" is one extreme; impermanence is the second extreme. Whatever is the middle of those two extremes, that also cannot be examined.

 

Sampuṭanāma mahātantra:

 

There is nothing empty, not empty,

and nothing to perceive in the middle.

 

The Meditation on Bodhicitta:

 

The nonexistence dependent on existence does not exist, also that nonexistence does not exist. Because the extremes do not exist, the middle does not exist, also do not rest in the middle.

 

The sgra thal gyur:

 

Because of being free from extremes, do not abide in the middle.

 

So we can clearly see that sutra and tantra agree on one point, i.e. there is no reality in the extremes, and there is no reality beyond the extremes. Ergo, there is no reality, since reality would have to be either existence or non-existence and so on.

...

 

But the mind is not a series of "discrete" mental moments in the way in which you are positing it. If you follow Nāgārjuna's reasoning, the mind is series of moments that are neither the same as nor different from each other. In the case of a person with āryan insight, there is no possibility of any disturbance between one moment of mind and the next because the mind stream has now been purified of causes for the arising of afflictions.

 

Āryan insight does not transform a relative mind into ultimate mind; it is relative mind that has the capacity to take the ultimate as an "object". The Gelugpa use the useful example of subjective clear light and objective clear light, subjective clear light is the mind that apprehends objective clear light.

...

 

As the sgra thal gyur tantra states:

 

Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness.

 

The commentary merely notes that this line confirms the quality of the non-existence of one's mind.

 

And further it states:

 

Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist.

 

The commentary describes this as the Great Perfection view that is totally complete freedom from extremes:

 

The so-called intimate instruction of the view of the totally complete space of the great freedom from activities is the view of the totally complete freedom from extremes. Since that is free from the extreme of existence, it does not fall into the position of substantiality. Since it is free from the extreme of nonexistence, it exhausts grasping to emptiness. Since it is free from both existence and non-existence, it is free from apprehending the intrinsic nature of the apprehender, since it is free from the extreme of neither existence nor nonexistence, there is also no concept of mere non-existence.

 

Moreover, since it is free from the extreme of emptiness, it possesses the meaning of an intrinsically clear core. Since it is free from the extreme of being non-empty, the extreme of grasping to substantiality is avoided. Since it is free from a basis [gzhi], it is not conceived as being either "clear" or "empty", since it is free from both, there is nothing to prove nor negate. In the same way, combine [the above reasoning] for all such as the extreme of appearance and so on.

 

Further because it is free from extremes it is not established as many. Because it is totally complete, it is not established as one. Since that is free form one and many, it is the inexpressible dharmatā that is free from falling into extremes.

 

Now then, if it is said "That is not Dzogchen because it begins to abandon extremes", since it is totally complete as existence, it means there is nothing to seek. Since it is totally complete as non-existence, it means there is nothing to abandon. Since it is complete as both, it means it is beyond accepting and rejecting. Since it complete as neither, everything becomes dharmatā.

 

Likewise, since empty, not empty and so on are totally complete, therefore, "Great Perfection" means not falling into hope and fear or extremes.

 

Moreover, because it is one, proliferation is severed, because it is many, there is not need to abandon anything. Further, because there are extremes, the middle is eliminated, because there is a middle, likewise, the extremes are eliminated. As such, if it is wondered why, it is because since it is free from extremes the middle does not exist. Because the extremes are negated, it is empty of a middle; since the middle is negated, likewise, there is no perception of extremes. Therefore:

 

"Because it is totally complete, there is nothing to dedicate."

 

And:

 

Since there is nothing more, there are no parts.

 

In case someone still doubts whether the basis is just referring to one's own mind, Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra states:

 

The rootless mind itself

is the root of all phenomena.

 

A passage from Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradīpa reinforces our understanding of this passage:

 

Just as from the root of the lotus

leaves and so on are continually produced,

likewise, though the mind is insubstantial

it exists as the essence of all phenomena.

 

This is the meaning of that: just as the root of the lotus is not connected with anything else, exists in water, and though that root does not penetrate anything, it is able to fill a great pond with leaves, flowers, and so on. Likewise, though the mind itself is insubstantial, it exists as the nature of all external and internal phenomena in the relative.

 

Just as shoots of rice in a terrace

spread everywhere without roots,

also the rootless mind itself

pervades the furthest reaches of space.

 

Here, the meaning of this is: in ponds and terraces, the plants called "rice" are interlinked, they grow on the surface of a terrace with a yellow flower, their roots do not penetrate. In the same way, while the mind is rootless, it spreads throughout all space, existing as the nature of all phenomena.

...

 

Who said tathatā was supposed to be interesting? Not the Buddha:

 

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

 

-- Unwritten Tantra [<--- Dzogchen Tantra]

 

“Venerable Śariputra, if one sees it like so, all phenomena are empty, without characteristics, non-arising, unceasing, without stains, and not free from stains; not decreasing, not increasing.

“Śariputra, in emptiness there is no matter, no sensation, no ideation, no formations, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no contact. There is no eye element up to no mental element, and also nothing up to the element of mental consciousness.

There is no ignorance; there is no end of ignorance; up to there is no aging and death and no end of aging and death.

Likewise, there is no suffering, cause, cessation and path.

There is no wisdom, nothing to obtain, and also nothing not to obtain.

 

-- The "Heart" Sutra

 

~ Malcolm aka. Loppon Namdrol

...

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." translated by Kalupahana

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

 

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

 

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

 

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

 

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

 

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

 

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

 

I agree with the idea of getting rid of these phrases like non-arising and so on ... but surely they come from translating a technical use of the Tibetan language to a subject which was central to their thought for 1000 years. The terminology they developed is precise in context but does not bear translation into everyday English.

 

We should not continue to ignore such principles such as non-arising, etc, otherwise Westerners will continue to interpret buddhadharma in the light of Christian theology, Idealism, etc. There is an epistemic context in which this language developed from, and thankfully competent translators are increasingly finding better ways to translate these concepts into native Western languages, which will pave the way for future generations in the coming decades. To sufficiently understand the context of non-arising just read some of the Prajnaparamita Sutras.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Apech]

Part of the problem stems from injunctions not to discuss personal experiences in public with people who may not be fellow practitioners. It's okay to discuss general view and philosophical positions but one's personal practice has to be kept secret.

 

You have a point there ... but I still think its ok to talk about how you see things from the basis of whatever insights or realisations you may have had.

[Simple_Jack]

As the sgra thal gyur tantra states:

 

Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness.

 

The commentary merely notes that this line confirms the quality of the non-existence of one's mind.

 

And further it states:

 

Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist.

 

The commentary describes this as the Great Perfection view that is totally complete freedom from extremes:

 

The so-called intimate instruction of the view of the totally complete space of the great freedom from activities is the view of the totally complete freedom from extremes. Since that is free from the extreme of existence, it does not fall into the position of substantiality. Since it is free from the extreme of nonexistence, it exhausts grasping to emptiness. Since it is free from both existence and non-existence, it is free from apprehending the intrinsic nature of the apprehender, since it is free from the extreme of neither existence nor nonexistence, there is also no concept of mere non-existence.

 

Moreover, since it is free from the extreme of emptiness, it possesses the meaning of an intrinsically clear core. Since it is free from the extreme of being non-empty, the extreme of grasping to substantiality is avoided. Since it is free from a basis [gzhi], it is not conceived as being either "clear" or "empty", since it is free from both, there is nothing to prove nor negate. In the same way, combine [the above reasoning] for all such as the extreme of appearance and so on.

 

Further because it is free from extremes it is not established as many. Because it is totally complete, is is not established as one. Since that is free from one and many, it is the inexpressible dharmatā that is free from falling into extremes.

 

Now then, if it is said "That is not Dzogchen because it begins to abandon extremes", since it is totally complete as existence, it means there is nothing to seek. Since it is totally complete as non-existence, it means there is nothing to abandon. Since it is complete as both, it means it is beyond accepting and rejecting. Since it complete as neither, everything becomes dharmatā.

 

Likewise, since empty, not empty and so on are totally complete, therefore, "Great Perfection" means not falling into hope and fear or extremes.

 

Moreover, because it is one, proliferation is severed, because it is many, there is not need to abandon anything. Further, because there are extremes, the middle is eliminated, because there is a middle, likewise, the extremes are eliminated. As such, if it is wondered why, it is because since it is free from extremes the middle does not exist. Because the extremes are negated, it is empty of a middle; since the middle is negated, likewise, there is no perception of extremes. Therefore:

 

"Because it is totally complete, there is nothing to dedicate."

 

And:

 

Since there is nothing more, there are no parts.

 

In case someone still doubts whether the basis is just referring to one's own mind, Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra states:

 

The rootless mind itself

is the root of all phenomena.

 

A passage from Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradīpa reinforces our understanding of this passage:

 

Just as from the root of the lotus

leaves and so on are continually produced,

likewise, though the mind is insubstantial

it exists as the essence of all phenomena.

 

This is the meaning of that: just as the root of the lotus is not connected with anything else, exists in water, and though that root does not penetrate anything, it is able to fill a great pond with leaves, flowers, and so on. Likewise, though the mind itself is insubstantial, it exists as the nature of all external and internal phenomena in the relative.

 

Just as shoots of rice in a terrace

spread everywhere without roots,

also the rootless mind itself

pervades the furthest reaches of space.

 

Here, the meaning of this is: in ponds and terraces, the plants called "rice" are interlinked, they grow on the surface of a terrace with a yellow flower, their roots do not penetrate. In the same way, while the mind is rootless, it spreads throughout all space, existing as the nature of all phenomena.

 

What does 'phenomena' pertain to in buddhadharma? The [5] skandhas, [12] ayatanas (think of "4 foundations of mindfulness/satipatthana"), and [18] dhatus, which comprise the specific theory of dependent origination aka. the 12 links of dependent origination:

 

The String of Pearls Tantra [<----- Dzogchen Tantra, tr. by Malcolm]:

 

As such, the three realms are

the five aggregates, the five sense organs,

the five limbs, the five functional organs,

the five objects, the five afflictions,

the five thoughts, the five minds, the five concepts,

the apprehended objects and apprehending subjects established as samsara [… ]

Caught in the aggregates, sense gates and the sense elements,

the apprehended object and apprehending subject,

samara itself persists for a long while.

One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter

in the castle of the three realms,

tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on,

oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara,

attached to the salty taste of desire,

bound by the neck with the noose of confusion,

burned with the hot fire of hatred,

head covered with pride,

setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy,

surrounded by the army of enmity...

tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b]

stuck in the mud of successive traces

and handcuffed with the ripening of karma.

Having been joined with the ripening of karma,

one takes bodies good and bad,

one after another like a water wheel,

born into each individual class.

Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping,

one sinks into the ocean of suffering

and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms.

One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy.

The body of a hell being appears as fire or water.

Pretas are frightened and intimidated.

There is a fog-like appearance for animals.

The aggregates, sense gates and sense elements

of humans appear as the five elements,

and also happiness, suffering and indifference.

They appear as armor and weapons to asuras

and desirable qualities for devas.

Such dualistic appearances,

for example, are like a quickly moving wheel

spinning continuously for a long while.

As such, diverse appearances

are like seeing a snake from a rope;

that [rope] is not [a snake] but is apprehended as a [snake];

forming as both the outer universe and inhabitants.

If that is investigated, it is a rope.

The universe and inhabitants have always been empty,

the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

[Simple_Jack]

To answer the OP:

 

As I pointed, all of this language concerning "the basis" comes from a passage in the Guhyasamaja uttaratantra. The continuum of the basis, since this is the reference, refers to the nature of the mind, which when recognized leads to buddhahood and when not, leads to samsara.

People get so hung up on the use of the word mind, consciousness and so on. Well, just look at these words: shes pa (jñā), rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā) and ye shes (jñāna). What do they all have in common? "shes". "Shes" just means "to know". If you say the basis is ye shes, that wisdom is a knower.

In any case, the commentary of the sgra thal 'gyur clearly maintains that ye shes is encompassed by a shes pa, and that shes pa exists individually in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere knower (shes tsam).

We can conclude from this then that the basis (which really is strictly a man ngag sde term) is just a name for the continuum of the nature of the mind.

The extent to which it is unconditioned is the extent to which no one made the mind "clear and empty", the mind has been clear and empty from the very start. Thus the resting in the unfabricated mind, the unconditioned mind, is resting in that nature of the mind (inseparable clarity and emptiness) which cannot be altered or modified in anyway at all no matter what appears in it/to it(hence the mirror metaphor). You can't make it better, you can't make it worse.

We say that the nature of the mind in this sense is unconditioned because no one made it, it does not have a beginning, it cannot be altered or changed. You cannot take the clarity of the mind and make it unclear. You cannot take the emptiness of the mind and make the mind substantial.

The mind can have various experiences, suffering, happiness, affliction, purification, thus we can also say that the mind is conditioned. It is also momentary, its continuity is not substantial, it is a continuum of moments, thus it is conditioned.

Once again, we have a conditioned entity, dharmin, the mind, that has an unconditioned nature, dharmatā, the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

The mind is not merely clear, for then it would be only conditioned. It is not merely empty, since then it would be non-existent. The unconditioned nature of the mind is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. There is no teaching in Buddhism about the mind and the nature of the mind that goes beyond this.

When we understand the principles above, we understand the union of the two truths, we understand the continuum of the basis, Dzogchen, etc.

When it comes to Dzogchen teachings, it is crucial to understand that the differences between wisdom, shes pa and rnam shes, for example, are all based on the anatomy of the human body, and the modalities of our consciousness as embodied beings.

If we say that wisdom, for example, is beyond mind, does that mean that wisdom is inert, like a rock or a statue? No, it just means that wisdom transcends the operations of the restricted consciousness of ordinary beings, wisdom is a consciousness that has less restrictions. What is the basis for the freedom of wisdom? The pure clarity and emptiness of the mind, of course.

We do not have a refined vocabulary in English for discussing consciousness and its different modalities. But indeed, that is what Dzogchen as well Buddhist texts in general are talking about, i.e., consciousness and its various modalities, unawakened and awakened.

...

 

The "natural condition" as you call it, isn't something real; it is baseless. It isn't out there, like "atoms", "stars" and "galaxies"; it isn't inside like "blood cells", "mitochondria", etc. This "natural" condition is just the nature of your own mind. It is not an objective condition— there is no "objective condition" because there is no "subjective condition". There is no "natural" condition because there is no "unnatural condition".

There is no wisdom apart from the mind and there is no consciousness apart from the mind, there is no buddhahood apart from the mind, there is no delusion apart from the mind, there is no samsara apart from the mind, no nirvana apart from the mind. Apart from the mind, nothing else needs to be recognized.

The mind is not real because it cannot be established, it is not unreal because one cannot deny that one is feeling, thinking and so on, therefore we say it has "no reality" i.e. there is no state of being that pertains to the mind, since the mind is beyond any extreme, it's nature is sheer clarity and emptiness inseparable. You won't find the mind by resting your attention on a rock, you won't find it by resting your attention on a thought, you won't find even if you rest your attention on the mind's own sheer clarity. You won't find it even if you ascertain sheer clarity is empty. You won't find in nāḍīs, vāyus and bindus, deities, mandalas, etc.

However, that being said, if you do not have a proper method, your afflictions will not cease, you will not gather the twin stores of merit and wisdom, you will not expand your mind to the point of omniscience and you will not realize buddhahood.

...

 

I would say that kadag, lundrup and thugje are a generic context, just like "red" is a generic context for all cows that are red.

 

The Dzogchen tantras are not inventing a brand new theory of Buddhism, they are just riffing on Tantric Buddhism as it already exists. That being the case, Dzogchen tantras, just like all other Buddhist tantras, do not deny conventional doctrines such as mind streams (citta saṃtana) and so on, that are necessary for receiving impressions or traces (vasana, bag chags) etc.

In other words, Dzogchen tantras exist in a continuum with other texts upon which later Dzogchen tantras like the sgra thal 'gyur (which are clearly influenced by the gsar ma tantras) are based. You want to define the basis as ye shes. The sgra thal 'gyur defines wisdom as encompassed by shes pa, and its commentary indicates that the shes pa that encompass wisdom, whether in Buddhas or sentient beings, is individual and unique to each buddha and sentient being. So what this basically boils down to is a discussion of how individual sentient beings are liberated.

I don't really care about what meta discussion we can have about "what it means". I am interested in what the texts themselves say so that we can understand their intention.

Therefore, since the discussion of the basis is premised on the concept of the three continuums, and since that continuum is just the continuum of an individual sentient beings consciousness, it is pretty meaningless to me to try and insist that the Dzogchen tantras should be saying something other than what they clearly all say, i.e., sentient beings become deluded, and sentient beings become Buddhas.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited June 9, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I argued with several Buddhists on this site for years and not one was able to offer a satisfactory explanation to the questions you are posing. Buddhists are trapped in absolutist anthropocentric ideology. Buddhists fall back on 'non being' and conveniently ignore the rest of the Hegelian dialectic; 'being, not being and becoming'.

 

Did you know that the "view" of the Buddhist teachings are meant to be meditated on? That's the purpose of buddhavacana: a means of continually refining and familiarizing oneself with the "view" until the moment of non-conceptual realization upon reaching the 'path of seeing.'

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." translated by Kalupahana

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

 

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

 

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

 

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

 

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

 

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

 

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

Edited June 9, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[doc benway]

I think that it may well be the case that pure consciousness gave itself a glimpse of itself shining in all its glory in the complete absence of objects and time.

I love how you phrased this.

I wonder what leads to these sorts of experiences?

I'm not sure that it correlates with any particular activity or practice.

I have a friend who had this experience as a young child.

Can you imagine the impact something like that would have on a child?

She has devoted her life to the spiritual path and helping others.

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

 

What the hell is buddhahood ?

And what the hell is naturally formed by nature ? (By what "nature" and what is "naturally formed")

And what the hell is buddhahood of clear realization.

("Clear realisation" is such a generic term -"Yesterday i had a very clear realisation as to the fact that my dog is not a cat")

 

Tell me how do these expressions relate to your experience right now ?

What is "buddhahood" , "naturally formed by nature " and "buddhahood of clear realization" right now , tell me??

I need you to get real and verify if your experience right now has any resemblance to whatever these things mean.

 

I dont need people like Kyle with his scholarly wannabe attitude to come here and litter the place up with quotes written in an alien language.All he does is that he always hides behind very well choreographed answers littered with quotes and written in a jargon that smells from a mile of I-have-my-head-so-far-up-my-ass-that-i-can't-be-bothered-with-ignorants-like-you.

Don't you see that he is incapable of giving straight answers , experiential answers , which come from direct experience of the teachings ?

People who have had direct experience of the knowledge of dzogchen, when explaining of how it is to rest in nature they don't use language like "i experience the display as non-arisen".What the hell is non-arisen?

 

They use the language of experience which is the language used in the following paragraph taken from "journey to certainty" the book you love:

When the ordinary mind meets with the condition of an outer object, an afflictive emotion will arise. If, when the afflictive emotion arises, we rest effortlessly free of concepts on top of its arising, this could be perfect purity, but it is not necessarily so. However, if effort is made on top of the emotion's arising, conceptuality is definitely present.

We should examine the phrase on top of that arising.

This is an important phrase to understand. However, its meaning is experiential rather than intellectual

 

Or the following from Longchenpa:

 

In the direct encounter between your consciousness and sense ob-

jects, you identify consciousness as a bare state of resting naturally. As I

indicated earlier, in letting go-by resting imperturbably, resting in the

immediacy of perception, resting naturally-you gain natural freedom,

the natural state of naked dharmakaya.

 

 

However your consciousness reacts to the sense objects it perceives,

whether indulging in or suppressing them, do not look at the essence of

these feelings, meditate on them, or seek some alternative, for by your

simply identifying bare awareness, they are free in their true nature.

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

They are free in

the sense of being timelessly free once you perceive their timelessly pure

essence. They are free in their own place once you rest directly in the

natural state of rest. They are free in the sense of being free in your im-

mediate perception of them, for they fade away directly in the context in

which they manifest. They are free in the sense of being completely free

once you have realized they have no basis-there is nothing that is not

free. And they are free in the very moment, for they occur in such a way

that they are free even as they arise. Regardless of what circumstance

manifests-no matter what appears or arises-it is awareness's own

manifestation and poses no threat to yogins of the great perfection.

 

 

I wouldn't give answers or insight which isn't based on my own experience. I don't like to talk about my experience (because there is a very thin line where pride and grasping can step in), but I will always talk from my experience. I would never ever speak or write about something I don't have experience of, for the very reason that it would be unfair to people who may read it and would be a lie.

[asunthatneversets]

I'm also sorry you seem to have such an incredibly negative perception of me.