[1:06 PM, 9/26/2020] John Tan: Once u clearly see logically how reified constructs from conventions create confusions and mistake conventions as truly real existence, u will also understand how cause and effect based on agency and action cannot b established. However that does not deny vivid appearances and functionalities.  If u see that, then there is nothing to argue about so I cannot understand the y u like to keep engaging in idle talks.  Also what is the taste of these deconstructions in real-time?

Yesterday midnight was raining heavily. Sitting in meditation, hearing the sound of rainfall in anatta, raindrops tapping the window r like heartbeats. The vibration of the windows from the heavy wind vibrates

the body.  The temperature changes, it becomes colder...whether the I disappeared and become the "room" or there is no I and no room, all these become irrelevant.

Then an inner radiance energy embrace the entire body mind as if lighting the whole dark room...still with eyes close feeling the entire changing sensations from the sitting to standing position, the dynamic changing pattern of sensations seem so gradual yet so fast...then the touch of feet on the floor and the deep breath that pulses the palms... another deep breathe....the slowly eyes opens...

To others it is just simply sitting and standing; but how is one to convey the depth of these inner dimensions of anatta from these simple mundane activities -- hearing, sensing, touching, breathing, sitting and standing?
[1:20 PM, 9/26/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. yeah thats like anatta actualization.. just like boundless presencing manifestation.. completely no sense of self, nor objects, but also no concept about anatta and emptiness.
[1:26 PM, 9/26/2020] John Tan: Question is how much quality time u engaged in practice and how much time u wasted in idle talk? 🤣

Also see: Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta

Mr. J isn’t very familiar with the nuances of “rigpa” as a principle
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
There are various modalities
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
I’m not sure why he thinks Dzogchen is related to gzhan stong
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Madhyamaka is inferior as a methodology but not inferior in terms of view
👍
1
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Rigpa kechigma is a mental factor. It is just the knowing faculty of a mind.
👍
1
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Mind [sems] is not rigpa but rigpa is the fundamental instantiation of a mind and when sems is the dominant condition, the knowing quality of the mind is a modality of rigpa, albeit an unripened and deluded expression, but it is rigpa nevertheless
👍
1
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Mr. J thinks rigpa is a monolithic principle like the purusa of Vedanta
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
It is much more nuanced than that though
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Köppl’s idea that Dzogchen promotes a positive ontology is really nonsense
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
And then Mr. J just spins back into negating imputation alone
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Per usual
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
But that is Mr. Jchen for you
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
He just reifies awareness as a monolithic unchanging nature and marginalizes everything else

  • badge icon
    rigpa kechigma is the initial unripened vidya or rigpa.
    krodha = kyle dixon
    level 6
    krodha
    1 point ·
    8 days ago
    · edited 8 days ago
    If the nature of mind is realized
    There is a spectrum of aspects that can be recognized and realized, from vidyā [rig pa] to the nature of mind [sems nyid], the two are not technically synonymous, and so on. Then, within that we must differentiate ngo shes, to recognize; and rtogs pa, to realize, and then liberation [grol ba]. Recognition of sems nyid is not the realization of sems nyid, just as the initial vidyā in the form of a mental factor as rig pa skad cig ma, what Norbu Rinpoche called “instant presence” is not qualitatively the same as the definitive expression of vidyā that knows the essence [snying po] of mind.
    Therefore this topic really is not so cut and dry.
    That's why people translate the first vision the way they do.. "manifest intrinsic reality" -- (from Dzogchen by His Holiness the Dalai Lama) on the first vision. "the direct experience of dharmata" -- (from A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro) The direct experience of dharmata doesn't exclude emptiness.
    Yes, well, this topic is also quite interesting. The use of chos nyid in the first vision as chos nyid mngon gsum “the direct perception of dharmatā” is actually a different use of dharmatā than sūtrayāna. Here, when we see chos nyid it indicates rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs (རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས), "confirming vidyā in a direct perception." Therefore in the case of the first vision, we are not referring to dharmatā as emptiness, but rather dharmatā is a term being used to indicate the appearances of rig pa that are ascertained in a direct perception [pratyaksa].
    The total realization of emptiness does not then occur until the third vision, which is called “the full measure of vidyā” because at that time, upon realizing emptiness and non-arising, our knowledge [vidyā] of phenomena is complete, and has reached its “full measure.”
    level 7
    Comment deleted by user
    8 days ago
    level 8
    krodha
    1 point ·
    8 days ago
    Who is your teacher? You should ask for clarification on this matter.
    level 9
    Comment deleted by user
    8 days ago
    level 10
    krodha
    2 points ·
    8 days ago
    For example you separate vidya from the nature of mind
    Yes, as did my root teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.
    The issue is that vidyā is subject to affliction, whereas the nature of mind, the basis, is not. If we say the basis and vidyā are one and the same, then we are saying vidyā is always perfected and there would be no reason for the Dzogchen path at all, which as Longchenpa states is the process of purifying vāyu and vidyā.
    It is a subtle but important distinction. Generally vidyā would belong to the lhun grub aspect of the basis, the nature [rang bzhin], but the basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion.
    Continue this thread
    level 10
    krodha
    1 point ·
    8 days ago
    Maybe good to ask always teachers but I've myself been given permission to teach.
    Then you should absolutely go seek clarification on this issue because you run the risk of confusing others.
    To me, your conclusions have fallacies and terminology isn't lining up.
    This is Khenpo Namdrol’s definition, perhaps reach out to him, Sangye Khandro or Lama Chönam for clarification. This is ABSOLUTELY the correct “conclusion” because they just aided my own teacher in the publication of the Dzogchen tantra, the Yige Medpa which is the definitive explanatory tantra on the first vision.
    Continue this thread
    level 8
    krodha
    0 points ·
    8 days ago
    Also the latter section on the direct perception of dharmatā is quite cut and dry, and if you aren’t clear on this point then you will encounter problems in your practice, so again please seek clarification from your teacher.
    level 2
    krodha
    4 points ·
    9 days ago
    The realization of emptiness takes place at the third vision.
    level 3
    zhonnu
    0 points ·
    9 days ago
    The way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes emptiness in thogal. As far as i am aware when people talk about the first bhumi like the OP does they talk about the understanding that sutra practitioners have. No questions were asked about thogal.
    level 4
    krodha
    3 points ·
    9 days ago
    The way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes emptiness in thogal
    Emptiness as a principle and realization, is identical in either case. They are both referring to the same emptiness [śūnyatā]. There is no difference in sūtra, tantra or Dzogchen on this point, only a difference in methodology.
    level 5
    Comment deleted by user
    8 days ago
    level 6
    krodha
    1 point ·
    8 days ago
    Dzogchen aligns with the Svātantrika view.
    level 7
    Comment deleted by user
    8 days ago
    level 8
    krodha
    2 points ·
    8 days ago
    sutrayana versions of emptiness can be different from dzogchen. That was the point.
    They are the same. This is why the Dzogchen view in terms of kadag trekchö is often compared to Nāgārjuna’s prasanga Madhyamaka.
    For example, Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:
    The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness. [The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham, were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata [tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no difference. One hundred percent [the] same.
    level 9
    Comment deleted by user
    8 days ago
    level 10
    krodha
    1 point ·
    8 days ago
    The Vaibhasika didn't subscribe to Madhyamaka, they asserted existent things.
    Yes, they are a realist school.
    Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje didn’t mention Vaibhasika though

    • Reply
    • 20m


  • badge icon
    More Kyle postings:
    Comment deleted by user
    7 days ago
    krodha
    2 points ·
    7 days ago
    "We had some confusion over the words recognition and realization but I'm not talking about a full realization of emptiness in the first vision. I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
    You still are not understanding what chos nyid means in chos nyid mgon sum it has nothing to do with emptiness. But I’ve explained this and you aren’t interested in listening, and that is okay for you, but your lack of clarity on this topic is concerning for others you may teach.
    "I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
    Initial recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very ripe, occurs at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions are the spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of exhausting phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, indicating the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig].
    Your Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of trekchö.

    • Reply
    • 14m
    • Edited

  • badge icon
    "We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind.
    This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."

    • Reply
    • 13m

  • badge icon
    "I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though.
    I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree."
John Tan commented "This article is very well written and yogacara never really explicitly said that mind is ultimate.  This idea privileging mind as ultimate over the relative phenomena was a later development."
 
 
Kyle Dixon sent me:














Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism

Submitted 21 hours ago by nyanasagaramahayana

It is not existent nor nonexistent, not the same nor different;

Not produced nor destroyed, it will not diminish

Nor increase; it cannot be purified

Yet becomes perfectly pure—these are the characteristics of the ultimate.

Ornament of the Scriptures of the Great Vehicle, Maitreya, recited to Asaṅga

Mipham Comments:

According to the Mādhyamikas, it is not that all the phenomena that appear through the power of dependent arising are not existent on the relative, conventional level, nor that they are existent on the ultimate level; nor even that they are both existent and nonexistent. On the ultimate level, nonexistence is the true nature of phenomena that exist conventionally. So, apart from simply being distinguished by name, these two do not, in fact, exist as two distinct entities: they are like fire and its heat, or molasses and its sweetness. Could there, then, be a third possibility—that thatness is something that is neither existent on the relative level nor nonexistent on the ultimate level? No. There is no valid means of cognition that provides a proof for a third alternative that is neither a phenomenon nor an empty true nature. Such a third possibility could never be the intrinsic or true nature of conventional phenomena. The Mādhyamikas thus assert freedom from the four extremes (existence, nonexistence, both, and neither), freedom from all conceptual elaboration, the inseparability of the two truths—the inseparability of phenomena and their true nature—which has to be realized personally. This true nature free from conceptual elaboration is always the same in being devoid of production, destruction, diminution, and expansion. It has not as much as an atom’s worth of the characteristics of dualistic phenomena such as purity and impurity.

Now, the Cittamātra approach speaks of all phenomena being nothing other than simply the appearances of the mind, and it asserts that only the clear and aware consciousness of the dependent reality, the basis of perception, exists substantially. If the Cittamātrins’ final standpoint is the assertion that this consciousness is only a substantially existent entity inasmuch as it is the cause for all conventional phenomena appearing, and that apart from this assertion they are not claiming that it exists substantially as a truly existing entity in ultimate truth, then they are not at all in contradiction with the Mādhyamika tradition. On the other hand, if they were to assert that it is truly existent in ultimate truth, they would be contradicting the Mādhyamika approach. It seems, therefore, that it is just this particular point that needs to be examined as a source of contention (or otherwise) for the Mādhyamikas.

In the cycle of teachings of Maitreya and the writings of the great charioteer Asaṅga, whose thinking is one and the same, it is taught that individuals on the level of earnest aspiration first understand that all phenomena are simply the mind. Subsequently they have the experience that there is no object to be apprehended in the mind. Then, at the stage of the supreme mundane level on the path of joining, they realize that because there is no object, neither is there a subject, and immediately after that, they attain the first level with the direct realization of the truth of ultimate reality devoid of the duality of subject and object. As for things being only the mind, the source of the dualistic perception of things appearing as environment, sense objects, and a body is the consciousness of the ground of all, which is accepted as existing substantially on the conventional level but is taught as being like a magical illusion and so on since it appears in a variety of ways while not existing dualistically. For this reason, because this tradition realizes, perfectly correctly, that the nondual consciousness is devoid of any truly existing entities and of characteristics, the ultimate intentions of the charioteers of Madhyamaka and Cittamātra should be considered as being in agreement.

Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha.

Because of the mind, the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise; if there were no mind, there would be no saṃsāra and no nirvāṇa. How? It is by the power of the mind that defilements create karma, subsequently producing the process of defilement that is saṃsāra. And it is with the mind that one gives rise to the wisdom of the realization of no-self and to compassion, practices the Mahāyāna path, and thereby achieves buddhahood, whose nature is the five kinds of gnosis, the transformation of the eight consciousnesses, and the ground of all. It is with the mind, too, that the listeners and solitary realizers realize the no-self of the individual and attain nirvāṇa, beyond the suffering of grasping at existence. So the roots of defilement and purity depend on the mind. Anyone who is a Buddhist has to accept this.

So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this. If there were no reflexively aware gnosis, or mind of clear light, it would be impossible for there to be a mind that realizes the truth of the ultimate reality on the path of learning; and at the time of the path of no more learning, the nirvāṇa without residue, the Buddha would have no omniscient gnosis. And in that case there would be no difference between the Buddha’s nirvāṇa and the nirvāṇa of the lower vehicles, which is like the extinction of a lamp, so how could one talk about the Buddha’s bodies (kāyas), different kinds of gnosis, and inexhaustible activities?

To sum up, thatness, which is the actual condition of all phenomena, is the completely unbiased union of appearance and emptiness, to be realized personally. If one realizes that it never changes in any situation, whether in the ground, path, or result, one will be saved from the abyss of unwholesome, extremist views.

4 commentssharesavehidereport

 Soh Wei Yu

The Original Pure Land
Padmasambhava is to be inseparable from the primordial nature.
His Copper-Colored Mountain buddhafield is the purity of your personal experience.
May everyone be born in this original pure land,
The uncontrived natural state of indivisible appearance and awareness.
CHOKGYUR LINGPA
(Jewels of Enlightenment: Wisdom Teachings from the Great Tibetan Masters
By Erik Pema Kunsang)
29 Comments
Comments

Mr. A
Sounds very Advaitic Soh
🙂

     · Reply
     · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. A
That is dzogchen view, however dzogchen is different from Advaita as explained by the Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith and his student Kyle Dixon:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/08/acarya-malcolm-on-dzogchen-and-advaita.html
Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
1

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 1h

Mr. A
Soh
, excerpt from your reference provided above,
"This is a non-reductive system. Nothing is actually reifed as being established at the end of the path. Just an array of illusory appearances"… See More

     · Reply
     · 1h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. A
Illusory appearances do not “exist”. They are empty of extremes such as existence or non existence

     · Reply
     · 1h

Mr. A
Soh
, yes....I am also talking of "illusory" appearances dear. Why would one use the word "illusory"?!

     · Reply
     · 1h

Mr. A
Even in Advaita all phenomena neither exist nor not exist. They are called mithya (neither sat nor asat)

     · Reply
     · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. A
No substrate is necessary.
Substrate implies a background. It is seen here that the sense of a background is erroneous. There is no background. Appearances are just vibrant transparent pellucid presencing. Even what you call I - even in the absence of five senses - is just another “foreground” manifestation mistaken into an ultimate background.
I will stop here because it is likely going to end up in a neverending debate

     · Reply
     · 1h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
You either realise it or do not

     · Reply
     · 1h

Mr. A
Soh
you have grown wise. I agree, three thousand years have not resolved this. But just to let you know there are refutations to what you have stated too in Shankara's Upadeshasahasri.
At any rate. I ain't serious. Just enjoying some appearances 🙂

     · Reply
     · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Right now every manifestation is pellucid, vibrant, utterly alive, bright, transparent, boundless, presencing all and everywhere with no trace of self/Self/objects
Utter joy and bliss
Utter perfection and purity everywhere
Utter paradise
Eyes always wide opened all senses open and beaming with brilliance without the dichotomy of sense organs, sense object and sense consciousness
Energetic radiance in total exertion
Transcendence is in the ordinary, nirvana is samsara
What was realised as “I” is just the same luminous taste in all manifestation, except there is no background I. That background unchanging is simply a wrong view. “Who” no longer applies, it is a flawed enquiry, and no longer applies for the past ten years.

     · Reply
     · 1h · Edited

Mr. A
Wait, wait, let me spoil some of your utter joy and bliss 🙂
1
 · Reply
 · 1h

Good descriptions, regardless of whether it is 'full enlightenment'

 

[11:13 AM, 9/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu:


https://youtu.be/4t8KvdMtT4A

 
[11:46 AM, 9/5/2020] John Tan: I like his descriptions, quite good but may result in energy imbalances.  Best is to practice breathing exercises and learn to regulate the energy into calmness...

 


Comments by Soh:

 One good way to regulate energy through breathing exercise is to practice the vase breathing.

 

Here is an excerpt from “Open Mind, Open Heart” by Tsoknyi Rinpoche:

 

“Vase Breathing

 

One of the methods that helped this woman and countles others cope with emotions is a practice that helps us draw lung back to its center, or “home.” For this, we use a special breathing technique as a tool, because breath is a physical correlation to the subtle wind energy of lung.

 

This technique is called vase breathing, and it involves breathing even more deeply than the type of deep diaphragmatic breathing often taught in many yoga and other types of classes with which people may be familiar.

 

The technique itself is rather simple. First, exhale slowly and completely, collapsing the abdominal muscles as close to the spine as possible. As you slowly breathe in, imagine that you’re drawing your breath down to an area about four finger widths below your navel, just above your pubic bone. This area is shaped a bit like a vase, which is why the technique is called vase breathing. Of course, you’re not really drawing your breath down to that region, but by turning your attention there, you will find yourself inhaling a bit more deeply than usual and will experience a bit more of an expansion in the vase region.

 

As you continue to draw your breath in and your attention down, your lung will gradually begin to travel down there and begin to rest there. Hold your breath down in the vase region just for a few seconds - don’t wait until the need to exhale becomes urgent - then slowly breathe out again.

 

Just breathe slowly this way three or four times, exhaling completely and inhaling down into the vase area. After the third or fourth inhalation, try holding a little bit of your breath - maybe 10 percent - in the vase area at the end of the exhalation, focusing very lightly and gently on maintaining a bit of lung in its home place.

 

Try it now.

 

Exhale completely and then breathe slowly and gently down to the vase area three or four times, and on the last exhalation, hold a little bit of breath in the vase area. Keep this up for about ten minutes.

 

How did that feel?

 

Maybe it was a little uncomfortable. Some people have said that directing their breath in this way is difficult. Others have said that doing so gave them a sense of calmness and centeredness they’d never felt before.

 

Vase breathing, if practiced ten or even twenty minutes every day, can become a direct means of developing awareness of our feelings and learning how to work with them even while we’re engaged in our daily activities. When our lung is centered in its home place, our bodies, or feelings, and our thoughts gradually find a healthy balance. The horse and rider work together in a very loose and easy way, neither trying to seize control or drive the other crazy. In the process, we find that subtle body patterns associated with fear, pain, anxiety, anger, restlessness, and so on gradually loosen up, that there’s a little bit of space between the mind and the feelings.

 

Ultimately the goal is to be able to maintain that small bit of breath in the vase area throughout the day, during all our activities - walking, talking, eating, drinking, driving. For some people, this ability becomes automatic after only a short while of practice. For others, it may require a bit more time.

 

I have to admit that, even after years of practicing, I still find that I sometimes lose my connection to my home base, especially when meeting with people who are very speedy. I’m a bit of a speedy person myself, and meeting other speedy people acts as a kind of subtle body stimulus. I get caught up in their restless and displaced energy and consequently become a bit restless, nervous, and sometimes even anxious. So I take what I call a reminder breath: exhaling completely, breathing down into the vase area, and then exhaling again leaving a little bit of breath in the lung’s home.”