The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:22 am

wisdom wrote:And its saying that this awareness transcends the discursive thinking of beings. If beings had no discursive thinking, then they would not need to practice anything and would already be established in awareness.


Do you really think that "awareness" means "awareness" ?

I'm aware, right now, as are you. That's pretty normal.
Last edited by garudha on Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:36 am

wisdom wrote:
garudha wrote:Of course, you mean that you might experience a transcendence, silly me. Please tell me; who is this you that you speak of ? :rolling:


Obviously there is no self.


Are you sure about that?

the previously quoted text describes:

Awareness that is self-cognizing


Can you explain this awareness?

established in awareness


Again this is your own fantastical interpretation or belief. I really have no idea how that would work. I think you mean that we might be able to transcend ordinary awareness and gain ultimate awareness. It's like you believe that "the self that doesn't exist" is able to cognitize an awareness. You think this is called The Great Perfection, huh?

You can try to argue some fine philosophical point


It's not a fine philosophical point --it's totally radical, dude.
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby wisdom » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:38 pm

garudha wrote:
wisdom wrote:And its saying that this awareness transcends the discursive thinking of beings. If beings had no discursive thinking, then they would not need to practice anything and would already be established in awareness.


Do you really think that "awareness" means "awareness" ?

I'm aware, right now, as are you. That's pretty normal.


You know what I mean. Are you serious or just trolling right now?

Yes, awareness *is* awareness, we all have it, all the time, its always here. In fact many of us after receiving DI realize that at some point in life we were in the natural state but failed to identify it on our own. It is indeed very ordinary in that respect. However, what is not ordinary is having the proper view, maintaining that view, and having confidence in that view. By my understanding (which is limited) the view is everything in Dzogchen.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby wisdom » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:47 pm

garudha wrote:
wisdom wrote:
Obviously there is no self.


Are you sure about that?


Yep. Although Ive looked at great lengths, again and again I dont find anything I can call "me". Theres nothing I can confidently display to anyone and say "SEE! Here I am!". Maybe your results are different from my own.

garudha wrote:
Awareness that is self-cognizing


Can you explain this awareness?


I cant explain it any better than Masters like Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa have. This is not to say at all that I am on their level, but rather the opposite, that even they have tried to explain it and have admitted that ultimately words cannot explain this state they are describing, and which we are here all discussing. Even less so am I able to approach anything resembling an explanation.

garudha wrote:
established in awareness


Again this is your own fantastical interpretation or belief. I really have no idea how that would work. I think you mean that we might be able to transcend ordinary awareness and gain ultimate awareness. It's like you believe that "the self that doesn't exist" is able to cognitize an awareness. You think this is called The Great Perfection, huh?


Becoming established in the "citadel of unchanging awareness" is indeed what the Great Perfection is all about. HH Dudjom Rinpoche makes repeated statements along these lines, and Im not going to argue with one of the greatest Masters of this path to have ever lived. But then again maybe my opinion of him is just my own fantastical interpretation as well, but Im OK with that.

Again, I lack the words to really describe it accurately- clearly! Yet if you or I manage to do this (establish ourselves in unchanging awareness), we will find ourselves free, open, spacious, without concepts, and in a state of lucid emptiness, clarity and bliss. How wonderful it is that all beings already possess all they need to accomplish such a wonder, yet how unfortunate it is that so few seem to be able to even get a glimpse of it.

I hope you have, regardless of if you agree with my feeble attempt to engage in such discussions or not, I wish everyone to be free from suffering.

Due to my own limitations however, Im going to have to refrain from further discussion on this subject. Ive basically said what I intended to say, and I dont intend to continue to say more because truly we could go on until this thread is 100 pages long. Also I feel this has gone away from the actual subject matter at this point, which is whether or not the basis is just ones own unfabricated mind.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:59 pm

wisdom wrote:
garudha wrote:
wisdom wrote:And its saying that this awareness transcends the discursive thinking of beings. If beings had no discursive thinking, then they would not need to practice anything and would already be established in awareness.


Do you really think that "awareness" means "awareness" ?

I'm aware, right now, as are you. That's pretty normal.


You know what I mean. Are you serious or just trolling right now?

Yes, awareness *is* awareness, we all have it, all the time, its always here. In fact many of us after receiving DI realize that at some point in life we were in the natural state but failed to identify it on our own. It is indeed very ordinary in that respect. However, what is not ordinary is having the proper view, maintaining that view, and having confidence in that view. By my understanding (which is limited) the view is everything in Dzogchen.


Failing to identify the natural state. Sorry, I'm paraphrasing you a bit here for the sake of argument. I'm not trolling.

May I suggest that it's not "failing to identify" reality which is the wrong view. It's the identifying itself that twists the mind into dualistic alienation.

The way I see it, quite simply, is that if the ground is compassion and we become a vessel of compassion, then we are one with the flow of reality (the eruption of compassion). If however, we are a blockage (not empty), then we only see the manifestations of compassion (looks like compassion falling dead to the ground) (our identifying means we become the mirror). ***

Awareness is therefore; becoming a vessel of compassion and therefore being the rise of divine nature, rather than dualistically seeing and suffering its disappearance.

This is why bodhichitta is so important.

*** yeah it's totally backwards how I've described it. eg: the arising and non-arising. I think it's more helpful to state it like that. Samsara is a mixed-up world so let's speak all mixed-up to match!

btw; I don't actually see it like that, unfortunately, as I need to work on my bodhichitta!

Also I feel this has gone away from the actual subject matter at this point, which is whether or not the basis is just ones own unfabricated mind.


If I have doubt about the basis then I refer to the writings of the masters who say the basis is the ground of all phenomena.
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby alpha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:31 pm

garudha wrote:
If I have doubt about the basis then I refer to the writings of the masters who say the basis is the ground of all phenomena.


So you remove your doubts about the basis through reading ?
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:44 pm

alpha wrote:
garudha wrote:
If I have doubt about the basis then I refer to the writings of the masters who say the basis is the ground of all phenomena.


So you remove your doubts about the basis through reading ?


Yes! If I didn't then the Maya of Samsara would totally convince me otherwise. I can accept Samsara to a certain degree and I enjoy it too (to certain degree) but I know It's easy to make irrational and superstitious presumptions when Maya is constantly deceiving me. I really admire some people here who have got such a good faith based on learning from old masters and their own meditations. :cheers:
Last edited by garudha on Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby Andrew108 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:44 pm

Hi Wisdom

It is important to remember that songs of realization are coming from experience in practice. They are verbalizations of how life displays itself to the practitioner. If we then read these songs and take them on as a set of beliefs then we are misusing them. Instead we should use these songs to check with our experiences how life is and how it appears to be.

But anyway maybe we can still use this song to illustrate some important points. So here goes.

"Emptiness, the secret of all the perfect Buddhas,
is the nature, void of every attribute
And free of all extremes. Not even in the middle is it found.
This absence of intrinsic being is established as The Great Perfection."


Emptiness is the nature. Absence of a permanent identifiable intrinsic being is established. This is far from the idea that there is no being at all. Again it is a descriptor of the real state of being.


"Pursuing their investigation
Through their inferential reasoning
Philosophers spin out their arguments.
They are totally at variance with the ultimate.
Awareness that is self-cognizing
Lies beyond the reach of words."


It lies beyond the reach of words but it doesn't lie beyond experience. There is awareness of basic being and the nature of that being.


"The primal wisdom of the Conquerors Transcends
The arguments of thinkers who assert existence,
As well as thoughts of common folk of lower understanding.
It is primordial freedom and the path of Great Perfection."


Thinkers who assert existence refers to those who assert a permanent fundamental state, such as those Vedanta philosophers who identify Brahma as the primordial state. Here JL is not denying conventional existence, but saying that the nature of wisdom is such that it transcends the type of existence that is said to be permanent.


"It is not bound by objects that appear, for it is empty
Yet it has a core of natural luminosity.
It is awareness that with qualities, the wisdoms and the kayas,
Is conjoined, like sun and sunlight, never to be parted..."


Here the notion is of union rather than absence. Again there is the description of reality as being 'mere'. This is a positive description of reality as it has appeared to the practitioner.

"...Awareness that transcends discursive mind
Is the Natural Great Perfections special theme.
Those who realize it find freedom
In awareness that arises from the ground.
Beings who have no such realization
Circle in that very state."


There is an awareness that transcends discursive mind. That is beyond discursive mind. Here it is clear that awareness arising from the ground is not discursive mind itself but a quality of an objective condition that is beyond discursive mind. My interpretation is that such awareness is found only when you 'de-personify' the practice by looking at life itself rather than personal mind (which always has a lot to say).

Idealists believe that both objects and the perception of those objects are mind-made. That is, the outside world of objects is a reflection of the mind that both perceives such objects and creates such objects.

The Dalai Lama says the following:

"The question of whether there is an external physical reality independent of sentient beings' consciousness and mind has been extensively discussed by Buddhist thinkers. Naturally, there are divergent views on this issue among the various philosophical schools of thought. One such school [Cittamatra] asserts that there is no external reality, not even external objects, and that the material world we perceive is in essence merely a projection of our minds. From many points of view, this conclusion is rather extreme. Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world."

I agree with the Dalai Lama's position here. There are others who do not.

I think meditators start by looking at mind, but end up with a more pervasive experience that focuses on life itself. Meditation in the end is as effortless as life itself. But we need to experience this for ourselves. What I have said is that if we understand how life presents itself to us, then we will learn a lot about it's nature. We will be humble, without fantasies, without worldly concerns. Contrary to this is the effort some practitioners exert into telling life and reality how it should be. It should be empty, it is ignorance, it should be transcended and so on. Here we are taking the words of our teachers and using them as ways of looking at the world that are positions and beliefs. Instead we should be letting life and reality tell it's own story. Contemplation then becomes integration into life and the nature of life. Practice is effortless. Eventually you will say mind is like this! Life is like this! Because it will be obvious.

Consider this quote from Khenpo Gangshar:

"Ignorant people claim that everything is mind.
They are deluded about the three types of appearance.
Have many shortcomings, mix things up and over exaggerate.
Meditators, give up such unwholesome ways!"


I am not saying this is what you believe. So don't be offended. But I think there is reason to be careful when you read assertions such as all is mind and there is no reality and the ultimate nature of mind is emptiness. Still there is an objective condition and we still have life. I happen to think that scholars who posit such things as reality doesn't exist and the objects that seem to appear are appearing due to ignorance, are being irresponsible and they should think if they are doing anyone any favours. Already Tibetan Buddhism in the West has been seriously misunderstood. So many people have beliefs that are nothing more than fantasies. None of those beliefs helps reduce the eight worldly concerns or makes the practitioner more loveable. And so on.......
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:02 pm

Andrew108 wrote:The Dalai Lama says the following:

"The question of whether there is an external physical reality independent of sentient beings' consciousness and mind has been extensively discussed by Buddhist thinkers. Naturally, there are divergent views on this issue among the various philosophical schools of thought. One such school [Cittamatra] asserts that there is no external reality, not even external objects, and that the material world we perceive is in essence merely a projection of our minds. From many points of view, this conclusion is rather extreme. Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world."

I agree with the Dalai Lama's position here. There are others who do not.


If I met the Dalai Lama I'd certainly ask HH what exactly Samara is to him.

Samsara is 1/2 empty?

Sorry, I can't see coherency in that position.

Edit: if there was some hard split between the physical world and the spiritual, then how could such things as Rainbow body be possible, for instance ?
Last edited by garudha on Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby Andrew108 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:08 pm

garudha wrote:
Andrew108 wrote:The Dalai Lama says the following:

"The question of whether there is an external physical reality independent of sentient beings' consciousness and mind has been extensively discussed by Buddhist thinkers. Naturally, there are divergent views on this issue among the various philosophical schools of thought. One such school [Cittamatra] asserts that there is no external reality, not even external objects, and that the material world we perceive is in essence merely a projection of our minds. From many points of view, this conclusion is rather extreme. Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world."

I agree with the Dalai Lama's position here. There are others who do not.


If I met the Dalai Lama I'd certainly ask HH what exactly Samara is to him.

Samsara is 1/2 empty?

Sorry, I can't see coherency in that position.


Read more about this here: http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=417
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby alpha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:09 pm

garudha wrote:
alpha wrote:
garudha wrote:
If I have doubt about the basis then I refer to the writings of the masters who say the basis is the ground of all phenomena.


So you remove your doubts about the basis through reading ?


Yes! If I didn't then the Maya of Samsara would totally convince me otherwise. I can accept Samsara to a certain degree and I enjoy it too (to certain degree) but I know It's easy to make irrational and superstitious presumptions when Maya is constantly deceiving me. I really admire some people here who have got such a good faith based on learning from old masters and their own meditations. :cheers:


If there is a Maya of Samsara there must be a Maya of Nirvana especially when reading about the basis you decide that , as a result of that reading, your doubts are no more.
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:42 pm

alpha wrote:If there is a Maya of Samsara there must be a Maya of Nirvana especially when reading about the basis you decide that , as a result of that reading, your doubts are no more.


Depends on if you think Maya is a separate mystical agency. I don't think it is. Samsara certainly functions as an agency. If Nirvana is an agency then it would be a very thin margin of agency, as I understand it. Perhaps we can hang a sign on Nirvana "last outpost of the Mayan region" or "Do not disturb; Shakti sleeps". What do you think ? Do you think, alternatively, that Shakti sleeps in Nirvana ? Maybe you think that Shiva sleeps with Shakti in Nirvana? Or perhaps Nirvana is when Shiva gets a whiff of Shakti's sweet perfume!? lol.
Last edited by garudha on Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby alpha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:52 pm

garudha wrote:
alpha wrote:If there is a Maya of Samsara there must be a Maya of Nirvana especially when reading about the basis you decide that , as a result of that reading, your doubts are no more.


Depends on if you think Maya is a separate mystical agency. I don't think it is. Samsara certainly functions as an agency. If Nirvana is an agency then it would be a very thin margin of agency, as I understand it. Perhaps we can hang a sign on Nirvana "last outpost of the Mayan region" or "Do not disturb; Shakti sleeps". What do you think ? Do you think Shakti sleeps in Nirvana ?


What i think ?
I think my brain will explode. :smile:
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby garudha » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:00 pm

alpha wrote:
garudha wrote:
alpha wrote:If there is a Maya of Samsara there must be a Maya of Nirvana especially when reading about the basis you decide that , as a result of that reading, your doubts are no more.


Depends on if you think Maya is a separate mystical agency. I don't think it is. Samsara certainly functions as an agency. If Nirvana is an agency then it would be a very thin margin of agency, as I understand it. Perhaps we can hang a sign on Nirvana "last outpost of the Mayan region" or "Do not disturb; Shakti sleeps". What do you think ? Do you think Shakti sleeps in Nirvana ?


What i think ?
I think my brain will explode. :smile:


Very Good! May her sweet perfume enter your brain. :rolleye:

(edited previous post).
"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked" - Peter De Vries
User avatar
garudha
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby Mother's Lap » Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:47 pm

Malcolm wrote:After the collapse of the previous universe, there are no buddhas and sentient beings -- and this is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana. Present in the latent basis however is a neutral awareness which does not know itself.

Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana.

This neutral awareness is what happens when someone acheives an incomplete full awakening, for example an arhat or some other form of lesser iberation that can "return to the cause". This is why Dzogchen makes such a big deal about Dzogchen Buddhahood being one that "does not return to the cause".


Do the atomic body, rainbow body and great transference body all constitute the "does not return to the cause" version of awakening? Is it ever possible for all beings to realise this style of awakening or does the cyclical nature of the cycle always necessitate further turnings?
The path of analytical reasoning is precise and acute—
But it’s just more delusion, good for nothing goat-shit.
The oral instructions are very profound
But not if you don’t put them into practice.
~ Patrul Rinpoche
Mother's Lap
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: The basis is one's unfabricated mind

Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:15 pm

Emakirikiri wrote:
Malcolm wrote:After the collapse of the previous universe, there are no buddhas and sentient beings -- and this is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana. Present in the latent basis however is a neutral awareness which does not know itself.

Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana.

This neutral awareness is what happens when someone acheives an incomplete full awakening, for example an arhat or some other form of lesser iberation that can "return to the cause". This is why Dzogchen makes such a big deal about Dzogchen Buddhahood being one that "does not return to the cause".


Do the atomic body, rainbow body and great transference body all constitute the "does not return to the cause" version of awakening?


Yes.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12033
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Previous

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asunthatneversets, daverupa, Josef, monktastic, Norwegian, Nosta, Soar and 25 guests

>