Lhathong

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Lhathong

Postby shazan » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:12 pm

Hi,

I was looking for Dzogchen vipassana but couldnt find anything on the net. The thing is that I have become fairly good at shamata, following Allan Wallace's attention revolution, and wanted to look into Dzogchen vipassana practices. But nothing was available on the net. The onlything available was progress of insight by mahasi sayadaw and sixteen stages of insight by Theerarach Mahamuni, both from theravada tradition.

So what exactly are the Dzogchen vipassana/lhathong practices?

Thanks
shazan
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:17 am

Re: Lhathong

Postby Sherlock » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:12 pm

If you are a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu read the Precious Vase and the book on Semzins.
Sherlock
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:11 pm

Also Chögyal Namkhai Norbu's book "Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation" goes over the four contemplations [ting nge 'dzins] of sems sde in great detail. He has another called "The Four Contemplations of Semde" which is just a different teaching on the same insight discussed in the 'Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation' book [the four ting nge 'dzins].

Lhag mthong is the second rnal 'byor which is covered in discussing the ting nge 'dzins.

The four naljors [rnal 'byor] of Dzogchen sems sde are:
(i) shi-nè [skt. śamatha, wyl. zhi gnas]
(ii) lhatong [lhag mthong]
(iii) nyi-mèd [nyis med]
(iv) lhundrüp [lhun grub]

The four ting nge 'dzins of Dzogchen sem sde are:
(i) gnas pa [calm state]
(ii) mi gyo ba [non-movment]
(iii) nyam nyid [non-dual]
(iv) lhun grub [natural perfection]

The ting nge 'dzins are something like the essence of the naljors, or what is cultivated/recognized. For instance, the essence of śamatha [zhi gnas] is the calm state [gnas pa] or 'nepa', or you could say nepa is what śamatha results in.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby monktastic » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:36 am

It should also be pointed out that Norbu Rinpoche's use of lhatong in the above post is not the only usage of the term lhatong/vipashyana by Dzogchen masters. For example, Tulku Urygen Rinpoche says:

Clear seeing, vipashyana, is your empty cognizance, your naked awareness beyond waxing and waning. This sentence has incredible meaning. In Dzogchen it refers to the true recognition of rigpa, while in Mahamudra it is called the innate suchness.


This is a general theme throughout Dzogchen and Mahamudra (that vipashyana is simply one aspect of the awakened state). As such, it cannot be separated from the general practice of resting in the natural state -- which, of course, must be learned directly from a master.

That said, there are also a host of investigative practices you'll find in Mahamudra: http://www.chagchen.com/
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Lhathong

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:09 am

In Dzogchen, vipaśyāna is resting in the uncontrived nature of mind. Śamatha always implies the presence of an artificial point of reference, because clarity is being reified into a substantiated substratum. When śamatha eventually collapses then the true vipaśyāna of the natural state shines forth, which is the definitive meditation.

But I agree this dichotomy is a different use of vipaśyāna compared to the lhag mthong referenced in the four naljors.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby monktastic » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:35 am

asunthatneversets wrote:Śamatha always implies the presence of an artificial point of reference, because clarity is being reified into a substantiated substratum.


Much like "vipashyana", the word "shamatha" is used in more than one context. TUR again:

In rigpa, the intrinsic steadiness is shamatha and the awake quality is vipashyana.


The way the words are being used here, it is not that shamatha collapses and yields to vipashyana to give the true meditation, but that the two are conjoined.

As masters repeatedly point out, the words "shamatha" and "vipashyana" are used in many, many different ways throughout the various vehicles. It's important not to get too hung up on any one usage.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Lhathong

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:56 am

monktastic wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:Śamatha always implies the presence of an artificial point of reference, because clarity is being reified into a substantiated substratum.


Much like "vipashyana", the word "shamatha" is used in more than one context. TUR again:

In rigpa, the intrinsic steadiness is shamatha and the awake quality is vipashyana.


The way the words are being used here, it is not that shamatha collapses and yields to vipashyana to give the true meditation, but that the two are conjoined.

As masters repeatedly point out, the words "shamatha" and "vipashyana" are used in many, many different ways throughout the various vehicles. It's important not to get too hung up on any one usage.

Yes in the way śamatha is being used in the quote you cited, the collapse of fabricated mind has already occurred. The use of śamatha as a descriptive term for conveying the steadiness of vidyā does not mean that śamatha in the traditional sense (meaning meditation performed from the standpoint of fabricated mind), needn't collapse, because it surely must if the definitive view is to flower.

As long as we're quoting Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby monktastic » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:10 am

You're right, Kyle. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was contradicting your explanation of the vipashyana that transcends mundane shamatha.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa
User avatar
monktastic
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Lhathong

Postby oldbob » Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:03 am

asunthatneversets wrote:
monktastic wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:Śamatha always implies the presence of an artificial point of reference, because clarity is being reified into a substantiated substratum.


Much like "vipashyana", the word "shamatha" is used in more than one context. TUR again:

In rigpa, the intrinsic steadiness is shamatha and the awake quality is vipashyana.


The way the words are being used here, it is not that shamatha collapses and yields to vipashyana to give the true meditation, but that the two are conjoined.

As masters repeatedly point out, the words "shamatha" and "vipashyana" are used in many, many different ways throughout the various vehicles. It's important not to get too hung up on any one usage.

Yes in the way śamatha is being used in the quote you cited, the collapse of fabricated mind has already occurred. The use of śamatha as a descriptive term for conveying the steadiness of vidyā does not mean that śamatha in the traditional sense (meaning meditation performed from the standpoint of fabricated mind), needn't collapse, because it surely must if the definitive view is to flower.

As long as we're quoting Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."


:bow: :bow: :bow:

I really like the key word "indivisible" in the above quote.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

My 2 cents.

From "Dzogchen the Self-perfected State by CHNNR, P117

"In all of the Buddhist traditions of meditation, two phases are spoken of, namely meditation on the state of calm or "shinay," and intuitive vision or "lhanton" (lhag mthong). Shinay meditation works to bring about a state of mental calm, in which thoughts no longer have the capacity to disturb the practitioner. Lhanton, on the other hand, is generally taken to mean a kind of inner awakening of consciousness, but it is interpreted differently in the different systems of the teachings.
In the sutras it is considered to be an attainment related to the body, the voice, and the mind, which arises automatically after one has practiced the meditation on the state of calm. In tantrism, however, it is regarded as a specific level of realization of the practice of transformation, that manifests signs linked to the prana, the chakra and so on. It could be said that shinay corresponds to voidness, lhanton to clarity, and the union of these two is the final arrival point of the practice of tantra.
But in Dzogchen, in the Series of the Nature of the Mind, lhanton is a level of the integration of the state of presence with movement. It is also called the "unchangeable state" (mi g.yo ba) which cannot be disturbed by any movement. -----"

Thus - lathong in Dzogchen has a very different and specific usage than that of other 8 paths. Note - no path is higher or lower - whatever path works for you IS the highest.

Back to lathong -

For me, in its Dzogchen practical sense, lathong is concentration without an object. It is when the visual field is relaxed to allow a non-differentiated appearance to arise. For me, resting in that non-differentiated appearance is lathong. For me, that non differentiated visual field represents the state of consciousness which is not disturbed by any movement of the mind.

So you sit comfortably relaxed in 7 point posture, most important being a straight back, rest the eyes on the far wall - if you are inside - and on the horizon - if you are outside, and then allow the focus of the eyes to drop back until you are resting in an undifferentiated appearance. Everything still appears, but the individual appearances are no longer defined as this or that. For me, being able to stay in this state without being disturbed by the movements of thought is lathong.

For me, shiney equates to concentration on an object. The object could be the letter ah - placed on a stick at the same height as your eyes or nose - a comfortable distance in front of you. You could also use a blue flower, a candle, or any virtuous object. The key point is to focus your eyes on this object and if your attention waivers, gently bring it back. This is done in comfortable short sessions and then gradually increased until you can comfortably maintain concentration for as long as you wish.

Once you have mastered shiney, you then go on to lathong.

It is always best to receive these teachings from an authorized Master of the Dzogchen tradition so you can ask questions, and receive answers, as experiences arise.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8917

Hope this helps,

ob
oldbob
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Lhathong

Postby shazan » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:39 am

Thankyou guys for your replies. Now that I look into it I realised that lhathong may mean many different things.

then we train in the practice of Shine without using an object as the basis
for the fixation of our gaze and attention. We take away the object,
and at this point we gaze into space, into the dimension of emptiness.
Keeping all our senses quiet, we try to relax into the same calm state that
we arrived at through fixation using an object. his second phase of Shine
practice is called “fixation without an object.” In any case, we consider
that we have succeeded in our practice of Shine when we can remain for
a longer period of time without thoughts, in a state of one-pointed attention
without being disturbed in any way by thoughts. In that state of
one-pointed attention, we discover that the real, inherent condition of
the calm state is emptiness. We are actually experiencing the emptiness
of all phenomena for ourselves. his is one kind of experience.
(dzogchen teachngs - namkhai norbu p-83)


The Semde practices of shine, involving fixation to bring one
into a state of calm, and lhagthong, enabling one to dissolve
the mental activity of maintaining that state of calm so that
one can work with the arising of thought, are practices of
meditation rather than of contemplation. They are nevertheless
considered to be principal practices, as they serve to bring one
into contemplation; but they are not of themselves the actual
practice of Dzogchen, because practice becomes truly Dzogchen
only when it reaches the level of non-dual contemplation.
Indeed, practices of Semde and Longde, though not exactly the
same as those found in the Semde, are to be found in almost
all Buddhist schools.

(The Crystal and the Way of Light
Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen - Namkhai Norbu p129)


@ asunthatneversets
Many thanks for your reference. I found almost everything I was looking for in Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation

@sherlock. Well I am not a student of Namkhai Norbu, although most of my understanding of Dzogchen path comes form him. Would you be able to give a brief description of the 21 semdzins.

-----------------------------

BTW, I thought that dzogchen might have some analytical meditation method that will progressively chip away the problematic parts of one's psyche, like theravada vipassana. After reading the book "Introduction to contemplation", I now realize that there might not be any such thing as dzogchen vipassana since dzogchen deals with rigpa while vipassana works with sem. Lhathiong is more or less development of shamata to that level that it becomes effortless, a default state of mind where emptyness and clarity are united naturally, rather that by effort.

And secondly tibetans have energy practices which are more efficient in producing equivalent results as theravada vipassana.
shazan
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:17 am

Re: Lhathong

Postby thigle » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:02 am

There's nothing like 'dzogchen vipassana'. Once again, a preliminary pratice is mixed up with Dzogchen. Even semde & longde are preliminaries for menngagde -in the direct-introduction-context. Dzogchen begins with menngagde, therefore neither practice nor practiced nonpractice.

Yongdzin Rinpoche wrote:
When you practise Shamatha there is always something to perceive, some focus. You can develop it so it becomes more stable, but it is incomparable with the Natural State. Why ? When you practise the Natural State there is no perceiving or grasping as this state is completely beyond consciousness. Shamatha (and Vipassana) on the other hand are always linked with consciousness. Shamatha can help calm your mind and develop various things, but you cannot compare it with the Natural State. It is very important for you to check the difference between perceiving and leaving everything, just as it is, through your own experience. It is impossible to explain this distinction through the voice; you need your own experience.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Lhathong

Postby Sherlock » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:30 am

Once again thigle gives inaccurate and misleading information.

Semde and longde are not just "preliminaries" they are complete paths in themselves.
Sherlock
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby shazan » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:48 am

Ok I should have said "post shamata tibetan practices" that donot need a guru, and that will make my shamata more stable, clear and effortless. And maybe make me more insightfull and wise :thinking: . Guru yoga cant be done without a guru, and I dont think doing energy/dream practices without a guru is a good idea either. So I am left with something that I can do with my mind or awareness.
shazan
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:17 am

Re: Lhathong

Postby Sherlock » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:47 pm

Stilling the Mind by Alan Wallace involves some Dzogchen techniques that I think do not require a guru at that stage.

The Attention Revolution also has some Dzogchen influenced techniques.
Sherlock
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby thigle » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:40 am

Sherlock wrote:Once again thigle gives inaccurate and misleading information. Semde and longde are not just "preliminaries" they are complete paths in themselves.


Maybe for CNN and his followers. But I have nothing to do with this teachings. Semde and longde are just preliminaries in the context of the direct-introduction. There's a subtle artificial focus by most of the semde/longde introductions. That isn't yermed. Stop mixing up "states of mind" with the natural state.

Semde example: Find the source of a thought. Find the thinker of a thought. You must look hard. But you can't find anything. It's impossible. Attention I: Don't create a reified-concept out of the fact, that you can't find anything. Don't create a "nothingness" or reified "clarity" out of the fact, that you can't find anything. Don't create a "thing" out of the fact, that you can't find anything. Attention II: Don't create this possible pseudo-insight while your practice: "There are only thoughts..no thinker..and this is a thought to..therefore there are only thoughts..but this is a thought to.." This is a step to much. You can have the sensation of "clarity" and "presence" and "bliss" while doing this step, but that's not the nature of mind, that's not knowledge/transparency/potentiality; it's a delusion, it's hypnosis, it's artificial, it's fabricated, it's grasping, it's a state of mind, it's consciousness, it's ignorance. You can't find anything, that's all. The only factual consequence? Interrupt your search/meditation. Longde example: Therefore relax, do nothing for a while. Menngagde example: But that's not the end of the story, because now you must recognice: you still practice/meditate, even if you "do nothing" .. or you "leave everything as it is" or you "act natural" or you "don't focus on anything". In other words, you practice nonpractice. There's an subtle expectation, who want's to have something from "doing nothing", et cetera. Therefore, mind creates a reified-concept out of "doing nothing". That's grasping. Your fabricated search for "something" has not really ended, even if you belief it has ended after the consequence of your preliminary practice. De facto/primordial: 'do nothing', or 'don't focus on anything', or 'leave everything as it is', or 'act natural'.., that's the beginning of another story, sometimes called dzogchen menngagde.

Yongdzin T.N.R. wrote:It is very important for you to check the difference between perceiving and leaving everything, just as it is
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Lhathong

Postby Sherlock » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:50 am

Those are reinterpretations of semde and longde within menngagde. In Longde source texts like the Dorje Zampa tradition it is quite clear that you can achieve rainbow body by Longde alone.
Sherlock
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby asunthatneversets » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:00 pm

thigle wrote:Maybe for CNN and his followers. But I have nothing to do with this teachings. Semde and longde are just preliminaries in the context of the direct-introduction. There's a subtle artificial focus by most of the semde/longde introductions. That isn't yermed. Stop mixing up "states of mind" with the natural state.

Dbyer med occurs at the third level of the fourfold sems sde methodologies known as the four rnal byors and/or the four ting nge dzins. The third aspect of those is nyis med and/or mnyam nyid, respectively, and both are aspects of one another. Both also denote the non-dual insight, or the 'inseprability', that the term dbyer med suggests in the context of contemplation [tib. ting nge dzin, skt. samādhi]. So they are not states of mind, but are the species of insight which results from recognizing mind essence [sems nyid], meaning; the knowledge of the natural state ensues from that insight.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby thigle » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:10 pm

Semde example: Find the source of a thought. Find the thinker of a thought. You must look hard. But you can't find anything. It's impossible. Attention I: Don't create a reified-concept out of the fact, that you can't find anything. Don't create a "nothingness" or reified "clarity" out of the fact, that you can't find anything. Don't create a "thing" out of the fact, that you can't find anything. Attention II: Don't create this possible pseudo-insight while your practice: "There are only thoughts..no thinker..and this is a thought to..therefore there are only thoughts..but this is a thought to.." This is a step to much. You can have the sensation of "clarity" and "presence" and "bliss" while doing this step, but that's not the nature of mind, that's not knowledge/transparency/potentiality; it's a delusion, it's hypnosis, it's artificial, it's fabricated, it's grasping, it's a state of mind, it's consciousness, it's ignorance. You can't find anything, that's all. The only factual consequence? Interrupt your search/meditation. Longde example: Therefore relax, do nothing for a while. Menngagde example: But that's not the end of the story, because now you must recognice: you still practice/meditate, even if you "do nothing" .. or you "leave everything as it is" or you "act natural" or you "don't focus on anything". In other words, you practice nonpractice. There's an subtle expectation, who want's to have something from "doing nothing", et cetera. Therefore, mind creates a reified-concept out of "doing nothing". That's grasping. Your fabricated search for "something" has not really ended, even if you belief it has ended after the consequence of your preliminary practice. De facto/primordial: 'do nothing', or 'don't focus on anything', or 'leave everything as it is', or 'act natural'.., that's the beginning of another story, sometimes called dzogchen menngagde.

If semde leads in the concrete experience/introduction to longde or direct to menngagde, it leads to Dzogchen. If longde leads in concrete experience/introduction to menngagde, it leads to Dzogchen.

Semde: Most stresses a reified emptiness (just like in the text) = grasping/reified conceptualisation/state of mind/focus. But it's a good preliminary practice for practiced nonpractice, if semde is introduced correctly.

Longde: Practiced nonpractice (reified relaxation, reified "doing nothing", reified "leaving everything open as it is") = grasping/reified conceptualisation/state of mind/focus. But it's a good preliminary practice for primordial nonpractice, if longde is introduced correctly.

Menngagde: Beginning of Dzogchen (primordial: "natural looseness", primordial: "do nothing", primordial: "leave everything as it is", primordial: "don't focus") = knowledge/transparency/potentiality = yermed.

For humans with low capacity, semde is perfect. For humans with middle capacity, longde is perfect. For people with high capacity, menngagde is perfect. If you are completely identified with reified-concepts like subject and object and you have a lot of questions about such reified-concepts, a semde introduction is perfect. If you are less identified with reified concepts like subject and object, you're not very interestet in a mindgame like semde; therefore longde introduction can be perfect. If you understand and realise the difference between practiced nonpractice and primordial nonpractice, semde and longde doesn't matter, because it is clear, they based on grapsing.

Trap in semde: Because they can't find anything, some people are completely identified with a reified emptiness. This reified-conceptualisation expresses itself as a state of mind, therefore consciousness. Clarity and/or presence and/or bliss and/or openess seems to appear. Now they think, that's the Dzogchen-view and give their qualities Dzogchen-names.

Trap in longde: They practice nonpractice and leaving everything open as it is. Now the disciple maybe think: "That's the big goal, because of my relaxation I have the sensation of clarity and/or openness and/or presence. Now they think, that's the Dzogchen-view and give their qualities Dzogchen-names. But their qualities are are only the expression of reified-conceptualisation, therfore grasping. Their experience is really different from "primordial-looseness" in the context of the true Dzogchen-view.

Trap in menngagde: They comming from longde or semde or they become some possible menngagde-indroductions directly, like: "Just leave everything as it is and do nothing, neither focused nor distracted". Or: "Dont use your consciousness". Or: "Neither focus .. nor meditate". Or: "Do nothing". Or: "Act completely natural". But now they practice the task like in longde. That's normal, because of grasping. But they doesn't realise their practiced nonpractice. They misunderstood the task completely wrong and think: "Great, that's true nonmeditation..and because of my true nonmediation, the sensation of clarity and/or openess and/or presence appear..that's the natural state..wonderful, I temporary realised it." Now they think, that's the Dzogchen-view and give their qualities Dzogchen-names. But their qualities are are only the expression of reified-conceptualisation, therfore grasping. Their experience is really different from "primordial-looseness" in the context of the true Dzogchen-view.

Because pure menngagde-introductions are very easy to misunderstand because of grasping, such teachings are self-protected and self-secret. One can hear and read Dzogchen-teachings like "do nothing", but he can't understand/realise the true unfabricated meaning of such introductions. For such fabricated minds, preliminaries like semde and longde are the only way to menngagde, which is the final Dzogchen-view and the beginning of trekchö/thögal.

Universal trap: Some people read menngagde-introductions and think: "Great, there's nothing to do." But this isn't the concrete task in the introduction. It's just thinking "about" the task. It's like experimental philosophy, not Dzogchen.

Example for a longde-preliminary, which leads to menngagde: Sit down. First holding your mind relaxed and open like the sky. Neither distracted nor concentrated. While your mind is calmed and relaxed, you can have the sensation of clarity and/or presence and/or bliss. Now interrupt your relaxation by shouting:"Stop!" Interrupt sensations like clarity, presence, bliss by shouting: "Stop!" Interrupt your practice/meditation like this. It's artifical. It's fabricated. If you act normally, there's nothing wrong.

But maybe .. now you practice "acting normally"..? Because you grasp. You wan't to have something from "acting normally", therefore you practice "acting normally", because you create a reified-concept out of "acting normally". This reified-concept express itself as a state of mind called "acting normal'nes". You detect it? This quality is like something which monitors all. It seems to be reified-identified with everything. And there are a lot of other experiences comming out from this quality. Like clarity/openess/presence/bliss.. . But that's just ignorance. That's why you suffer.

Recognice the difference between practiced "acting normally" and unfabricated "acting normally" exactly and interrupt your "acting normal'nes" inclusive your other experiences through the shout: "Stop!". Now do nothing.

But maybe .. now you practice "doing nothing"..? Because you grasp. You wan't to have something from "doing nothing", therefore you practice "doing nothing", because you create a reified-concept out of "doing nothing". This reified-concept express itself as a state of mind called "doing nothing'nes". You detect it? This quality is like something which monitors all. It seems to be reified-identified with everything. And there are a lot of other experiences comming out from this quality. Like clarity/openess/presence/bliss.. . But that's just ignorance. That's why you suffer.

Recognice the difference between practiced "acting normally" and unfabricated "acting normally" exactly and interrupt your "acting normal'nes" inclusive your other experiences through the shout: "Stop!"

Now do nothing. De facto, therefore it's unfabricated. That's primordial natural looseness. Since it is completely unfabricated, the reified-concepts of an origin or source or subject or object.. doesn't matter naturally from itself. The described fact: "it doesn't matter naturally from itself", is immediate-obvious knowledge, but you can't understand knowledge trough consciousness. Knowledge is not in any way to distinct from what appears, therefore everything appears as primordial expression of knowledge, therfore everything appears like a vivid reflection; transparency. Note: It's not "a vivid reflection", it's "like a vivid reflection". Don't misunderstand the term "vivid reflection" or "transparency" in a reified way. You can't understand transparency through consciousness. This isn't about qualities of consciousness.

If knowledge/transparency is obvious for a relative long time - because you make a special decision - knowledge/transparency begins to unfold. This is the capacity of knowledge/transparency and the beginning of thögal. The words "knowledge/transparency/capacity" are just used to describe. In fact there's no triple like "knowledge/transparency/capacity". Primordial inseparability, just as it is, cannot be really described. Note for the invisible reader who doesn't know anything about Dzogchen: Don't think this is the end of the story. The grand finale isn't really described in this text.
Last edited by thigle on Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: Lhathong

Postby asunthatneversets » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:27 pm

Thigle, aside from my opinion that your ideas do not correspond with the proper views of sems sde, klong sde and man ngag sde, you should not be posting these semblances of practice instruction in this forum or elsewhere on the web. Especially not with your own commentary and interpretations of their meaning and respective results. It is very bad form. There are ways to discuss these teachings without citing the practices, and you would do well to refine your methods of interaction so you are not broadcasting intimate instructions to any one with an internet connection.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Lhathong

Postby thigle » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:54 pm

asunthatneversets, you may read and study a lot about Dzogchen and you may know a lot of tibetan terms, but your academical, religious and sectarian point of view "on" Dzogchen, isn't Dzogchen. Better you stop distracting the invisible reader by seeding doubt and mixing up everything. I'm a buddhist, and buddhism is for everybody, even for non-buddhists. This teachings are true, not faked. They are self-secret, therefore it needs nobody to protect. You understand, or not. Better one cannot understand the teachings, before one misunderstand the teachings, because of "mixing up" everything or academical speculations. Where's Kalden Y. when one needs him.. :D.
Last edited by thigle on Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the time of Kaliyuga, the time of great degeneration
thigle
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Next

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

>