Meditating on the Meditator

[Boy]

@Marblehead: I see. Even though that is not what Ramana spoke about, I agree that a clear view of oneself removes a lot of stress.

[Marblehead]

@Marblehead: I see. Even though that is not what Ramana spoke about, I agree that a clear view of oneself removes a lot of stress.

Yeah, I know.  But I have to put the words of others into my life.  Therefore I must translate their words into my words.

 

I rarely quote anyone.  I regularly use the thoughts of others.  I try to do them honor when I am using their thoughts.  Sometimes I miss up and misrepresent what they said.

 

I have had a couple experiences such that "I" wasn't even there.  Those are rare for me though.  But beautiful.

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[dwai]

"Great spiritual masters" usually are made and idealized into such by masses of common people

who have no base to identify a true spiritual master,

and so they usually not become such spiritual celebrities through great spiritual achievement.

In other words:

I wouldn't give more than a raised eyebrow about the theories of those famous and much cited so-called masters

concerning all the theoretical alleged different types of consciousness,

especially regarding those of the classic popular indian masters

(levels of samadhi, turiya, god consciousness, krishna consciousness, etc., etc.),

who created a highly detailed and complex theoretical system about a subject

with which they fill myriads of books with their musings about it,

which is no description of reality but is simply a philosophy.

This is at the same level of absurdity as the classic indian theories of how exactly the so-called chakras look like in all their alleged magnificent details and all the many things they are associated with...

If you knew why the chakras look like lotuses you'd not be so dismissive

 

Each of us approach things based on the level of experience and awareness we possess. You are right in your position based on the categorical framework you possess at present. In future? Who knows...

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[dwai]

Yep, they grow out of the backbone,

look like colored lotuses with pictures of little elephants, snakes, triangles, rectangles, halfmoons and circles painted at their pistils,

and of course they have sanskrit letters written at their petals (which they open and close like flowers).

 

 

I don't plan on a regression in the future.

Obviously you are here to troll...good luck

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[Marblehead]

Is anyone still meditating?

[Tibetan_Ice]

"Stay focused on the Self"?

"Meditating at the Meditator"?

"Focus on pure awareness"?

When people have the impression or sense that they are meditating at their "self" or "the observer",

when they feel and are convinced that they are "self-aware" or "pure awareness",

they are actually meditating at a very subtle and not very obvious part of their ego

without ever realizing it!

The "self" surely exists and "observes", but every sense or awareness of an "observer" or "self"

is just a subtle egotistic illusion.

The "self" is rather a function or a mode than a being or an entity.

The terms "self" and "observer" are in a tragical way misleading.

In other words: It is not possible to "meditate at the meditator"...directly.

Concerning the "reductive" way of meditation at emptiness, it might work in theory,

but you not only will return without any memory of any experience that might indicate

that you were successful or not.

And you won't have been.

Because every awareness arises with it's content and therefore as consciousness,

otherwise it doesn't arise and therefore exist at all.

In other words: When you really succeed in leading your awareness into emptiness,

awareness will simply cease to exist...and simple non-existence of awareness remains.

Which has no more benefit than and in fact is similar to deep sleep.

This is really hard to understand. Perhaps English is not your first language?

Your usage of the term "awareness" is problematic. I would change your usage of the term "awareness" into "conscious awareness" and use the term "rigpa" to indicate that which never arises, does not require an object to exist, is beyond time and space and is self aware.

 

You can lead conscious awareness into nothingness, but you can't lead rigpa into nothingness or nonexistence as you seem to have written.

 

Also, your definition of "emptiness" as nothingness is not Buddhist, for emptiness in Buddhism is about the non-inherency of existence. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. The usage of the term "emptiness" to represent a wide open space with nothing in it is possible as a metaphor in the English language, but extra care has to be taken when claiming that one can lead "conscious awareness" into emptiness.

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[3bob]

many of those inspired depictions of wonderful, radiating beings sitting on a lotus are not just romanticized/flowery drawings... that is how they look in the light realms where most karma's and ego are resolved compared to other more conflicted and strife like realms.  Btw, such beings tend to be very compassionate although there are some that are very stern, powerful, no non-sense, inviolate guardians.

Edited July 31, 2016 by 3bob

[dwai]

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[Marblehead]

I sat at my window meditating on the clouds wondering if they were going to head my way and give me rain.  All the clouds dissipated.  So much for meditation with intent.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Maybe it's not my fault that you don't understand?

Maybe you have just a wrong understanding?

 

Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings - Tenzin Namdak

page 46

Tenzin Namdak is talking about the Mother Clear Light in that quote while based on the context of your statements from your post, you are talking about Son Clear Light.

 

From "The Golden Letters"

11. The Mother and the Son Clear Light

 

In our meditation practice, we recognize that whatever thoughts and passions arise represent the energy or potentiality of Rigpa manifesting. This Rigpa is like the sun in the sky, and its energy is like the rays of the sun. We recognize that the inherent nature of all these discursive thoughts (rnam-rtog de dag gi rang-bzhin), no matter how diverse they appear, is, in fact, the actual Clear Light of the Base, which is none other than the Dharmakaya, the Great Mother. And this nature or source is called the Mother Clear Light that abides as the Base (gzhi gnas ma'i 'od gsal). The Clear Light is, in reality, their natural condition or mode of being (gnas-lugs), the way in which thoughts exist naturally. And this Mother is something universal, rather than being individual, in the sense that, although many different individual Buddhas manifest throughout time and space, they all participate in a single Dharmakaya that transcends all dualities and pluralities.' We come to recognize the Clear Light by means of the view to which we have been previously introduced by the master, who indicates it to us, saying, "This is the Clear Light of your own Rigpa, your state of intrinsic Awareness." This individual Clear Light to which the master introduces us and which we experience again and again in our meditation experience throughout our lifetime, is known as the Clear Light of the Path (lam gyi 'od gsal) rather than the Clear Light of the Base (gzhi' 'od gsal). This luminosity met with on the path is also known as the Son Clear Light (bu'i 'od gsal), in contrast to the Mother Clear Light (ma'i 'od gsal). This son or child is like a small spark of the totality of the Clear Light. For example, it is said to be no more than a small butter lamp held up against the midday sun that is the source of all light. The Son, the Clear Light of the Path, is experienced in our meditation practice during our lifetime, time, but the Mother, the Clear Light of the Base, is met with at the moment of death when the Clear Light dawns at the onset of the Bardo of Reality.

 

 

You said "In other words: When you really succeed in leading your awareness into emptiness, awareness will simply cease to exist...and simple non-existence of awareness remains.

Which has no more benefit than and in fact is similar to deep sleep."

 

First off, you do not lead your awareness into emptiness. The two are inseparable from the start within the context of the natural state. In Dzogchen, you are introduced to rigpa, son clear light and that is what you work with. If you are really ripe, you might realize mother clear light but that would be extremely rare.

 

Secondly, saying that there is "no more benefit than and is similar to deep sleep" indicates that you are still in the domain of the "son clear light", the natural state. Therefore, I would have to disagree. There is great benefit in remaining in the natural state, as that is the whole goal of the practice of Dzogchen. And, if you remain in the natural state all the way through a sleep cycle, you would realize that you can be in dreamless deep sleep and still be aware. You can be unconscious and still be aware. So your idea that there is no awareness in deep sleep and it is a nonproductive state is true for a normal person, but for a developed practitioner, they would laugh at you.

 

Further, there are many usages of the term "rigpa".

In the Namdak quote you quoted:

 

But when we further examine the Dharmakaya, we discover that there are two sides to it. On the side of Shunyata or emptiness, it is permanent, but on the side of wisdom, it is impermanent. The Kunzhi, the basis of everything, is permanent because it is emptiness itself, but Rigpa is impermanent because it is not always manifest. Nevertheless, these two, Kunzhi and Rigpa, are always inseparable (dbyer-med) in the Natural State. On the side of emptiness (stong-cha), there is permanence, but on the side of clarity (gsal-cha) or awareness (rig-cha), there is impermanence. So, the manifestation side is impermanent, even when it represents pure vision. It is changing all of the time, whereas the emptiness side is constant and permanent. We can logically distinguish these things when we speak about the Natural State, but the Natural State is a totality and a perfect unity. Within it, emptiness and clarity are inseparable and never otherwise. This inseparability, or Yermed (dbyer-med), is the essence of Dzogchen. To fall either on the side of emptiness or on the side of manifestation is to deviate from the Dzogchen view and to fall into partiality and extreme views.

 

 

he specifically used the term "rig-cha".

 

Rig-cha means

http://english-tibetan-dictionary.tumblr.com/post/59659576192/gdang

 

rig cha - the aware aspect, the aspect of awareness, the quality of being aware, cognizant, the cognizant aspect, abbr. of {rig pa'i cha} Syn {gdangs cha}; on the side of awareness [RY]

 

rig cha - the aspect of awareness, the quality of being aware, cognizant, the cognizant aspect [abbr of {rig pa'i cha} syn *{gdangs cha}

 

 

Rig-cha is not rigpa within the context that I used the term.

 

You said "...and simple non-existence of awareness remains.

...."

 

This part of your statement has also strayed into an extreme. Emptiness does not mean "non-existence". You have interpreted Namdak's statement that rig-cha is not permanent to mean that it is "non-existent".

 

From http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Emptiness.

Emptiness

 

Emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. སྟོང་པོ་ཉིད་, tongpa nyi; Wyl. stong pa nyid) — the absence of inherent existence in all phenomena, which was explained by the Buddha in the sutras of the second turning of the Wheel of Dharma, and further elaborated upon by masters such as Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.

 

Sogyal Rinpoche says:

 

"Unfortunately, the word ‘emptiness’, which is used to translate the Sanskrit term shunyata, carries a connotation of a nothing-ness, or a void. Happily, there is a wonderful definition in Tibetan that captures its true meaning: Tib. རྟག་ཆད་དང་བྲལ་བ་, tak ché dang dralwa, which translates as: ‘free from permanence and non-existence'.

Generally, all philosophies tend to fall into one of two extremes: ‘eternalism‘: believing in the existence or permanence of something, or ‘nihilism‘: believing in non-existence. Shunyata goes beyond both of these extremes, because it is neither permanent nor non-existing, and that is, ultimately, how things are."

 

I mean, Namdak does say himself that "Within it, emptiness and clarity are inseparable and never otherwise. This inseparability, or Yermed (dbyer-med), is the essence of Dzogchen. To fall either on the side of emptiness or on the side of manifestation is to deviate from the Dzogchen view and to fall into partiality and extreme views"

 

So, perhaps that explains my position a little better...

[Boy]

I have had a couple experiences such that "I" wasn't even there.  Those are rare for me though.  But beautiful.

Boy: They are indeed. Speaking of quotes.. Whitney Houston decided long ago never to stand in anyone's shadow. I tried to find a way not to make a shadow. She died a terrible death while I was despondent for many years. It's better to do both.

[Marblehead]

Boy: They are indeed. Speaking of quotes.. Whitney Houston decided long ago never to stand in anyone's shadow. I tried to find a way not to make a shadow. She died a terrible death while I was despondent for many years. It's better to do both.

Truly sad about Whitney.  So much potential.  And you,  probably likewise.  I don't see any direct problem with either course.  But whatever course we choose it should be compatible with our true nature.  Same with meditating.  Different methods are best for different people. 

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[Marblehead]

Yeah, my lights are white except for the ones that aren't.

 

All my meditation sessions are successful except for the ones that aren't.

 

I didn't meditate last night but I did get some sleep.

 

And really, empty-minded meditation is much like sleep except that it isn't.

[3bob]

my spin off that: I reserve the right to put something on the shelf in case it comes in handy later. hehe

Edited August 1, 2016 by 3bob

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, I see no reason to add more to my reasoning of my previous posts,

the argumentation was imo pretty clear, logical and comprehensible.

 

Reynolds is intellectualizing and misinterpreting highly theoretical dzogchen principles

and that doesn't exactly benefit practically minded readers.

In dzogchen there are no different forms of "clear light" you can tap into practically, just one.

 

You probably noticed that I began to ignore your posts.

That is for the reason that in sum I began to find your reasoning and personal convictions bizarre to such a high degree, that I don't even know how to reply to your posts anymore in a reasonable way.

No offence.

The book you quoted from, Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings - Namdak was Transcribed and edited, together with Introduction and Notes, by John Myrdhin Reynolds

 

You have the audacity to claim that he is "misrepresenting highly theoretical dzogchen principles"?

 

Even Namdak acknowledges son clear light and mother clear light.

 

There is mention of the clear light here, Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings:

When our internal breathing ceases, we black out. It is the same with all beings. At that time our Natural State as the Clear Light dawns, whether the individual is aware of it or not. The presence of the Natural State is Clear Light. All beings experience this; the difference lies in whether we recognize it or not. If we are practitioners of Dzogchen, it is much more likely that we will recognize the Clear Light as the manifestation of our own Nature of Mind at this time.

 

What do you suppose Namdak means here ?

We have a proverb in Tibetan: If I am too close, I cannot see me; if it is too bright, I cannot see it. The Natural State is something that is always connected with us, but we do not see it. So this awareness (rig-pa} is only found just after a thought has liberated. When the clouds are cleared away, then we can see the luminous sky. Our practice removes the clouds. The examples are that of a channel of water leading to the sea or that of an only child returning to its mother. So that is why we need to practice.

 

 

 

 

From THE FEATURE OF THE EXPERT, GLORIOUS KING: “THREE LINES THAT HIT THE KEY POINTS”

 

ROOT TEXT AND COMMENTARY BY PATRUL RINPOCHE

 

 

 

Additionally, whatever discursive thought or affliction arises, it is not something apart from dharmakaya wisdom, rather, the nature of those discursive thoughts is actual dharmakya, the ground’s luminosity. If that, which is called ‘the mother luminosity resident in the ground’, is recognized, there is self-recognition of the view of self-knowing luminosity previously introduced by the guru and that is called ‘the luminosity of the practice path’. Abiding in one’s own face of the two luminosities of ground and path become inseparable is called ‘the meeting of mother and son luminosities’ so,

 

 

And again from Dudjom Lingpa's Heart of the Great Perfection:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Great-Perfection-Lingpas-Visions/dp/1614293481/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470063650&sr=8-1&keywords=Heart+of+the+great+perfection

 

Individuals who do not reach the culmination of the path like that realize the vital points of the view and meditation, like a swallow entering its nest; identify the transitional phase of dying, like a lovely young woman gazing at her reflection; recognize the nature of existence, like meeting someone you have known before; [/b] merge the clear light into absolute space, like a child crawling onto its mother’s lap; [/b]

 

 

Hint, any time you see a reference to son and mother, or child and mother, most books on Dzogchen and the Great Perfection are referring to the clear lights and the joining of the two. In reality there is only one clear light but they speak about it like there are two for the sake of clarity because there is the relative truth and the absolute truth.

[Wells]

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by spacester

[dwai]

Someone commented about how the observer cannot observe itself.

 

When watcher watches itself, the subject and object merge and there is only aware stillness

[Tibetan_Ice]

I don't ascribe any importance to these terms and the philosophy section of dzogchen which contains these.

You won't find them or any other classification of different hypothetical forms of rigpa in any good dzogchen practice book.

Name one good dzogchen practice book, please..